K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the order dated 11-3-1985 passed in W. P. No. 8398/1984. The appellants herein were respondents-1 to 3 and respondents-1 and 2 herein were the petitioners in the writ petition. In this appeal, the appellants will be referred to as respendents-1 to 3 and respondents-1 and 2 as petitioners. ( 2 ) IN the writ petition, the petitioners have sought for quashing the orders dated 31-3-1984 passed by the 1st respondent on claim application nos. Mw 92/1983 and mw 93/1983 (Annexure-H ). Those applications were filed by the labour enforcement officer (respondent-2) before the 1st respondent under sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the minimum wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). The labour enforcement officer claimed that the wages paid by the petitioners to the workmen employed for construction of staff quarters for railway administration at puttcnahalli, yelahanka hobli were not in conformity with the notification issued by the central government fixing the minimum wages; that as the work was being carried on for the purpose of the railways and within the railway establishment, the appropriate government was the central government under the Act, therefore, the notification issued by the central government prescribing minimum wages for the employment in the building operations applied to it, and as such the workmen were required to be paid the wages as per the notification issued by the central government. Accordingly, on the basis of the minimum wages prescribed by the central government and the actual wages paid by the petitioners to the workmen, the difference between them was claimed by the 2nd respondent - labour enforcement officer- as payable to the employees by the petitioners. The difference as claimed in the application was as follows:"1. Claim application No. Mw 92/1983: a. Difference between fixed minimum rates of wages and the actual wages paid for the period from 4-9-1982 to 20-2-1983. . . Rs. 11,192-70 b. Compensation amounting to. . . Rs. 1,11,927-00 2. Claim application No. Mw 93/1983: a. Difference between the fixed minimum rates of wages and the actual wages paid for the period from 27-1-1983 to 26-6-1983. . . Rs. 4,702-00 b. Compensation amounting to. . . Rs. 47,020-00"thus in all, the 2nd respondent claimed that the petitioners were required to pay a sum of Rs. . . Rs. 1,11,927-00 2. Claim application No. Mw 93/1983: a. Difference between the fixed minimum rates of wages and the actual wages paid for the period from 27-1-1983 to 26-6-1983. . . Rs. 4,702-00 b. Compensation amounting to. . . Rs. 47,020-00"thus in all, the 2nd respondent claimed that the petitioners were required to pay a sum of Rs. 1,74,841-70 to the employees, and requested the 1st respondent to direct the petitioners to pay the same to their employees. ( 3 ) THE applications were contested by the petitioners on two grounds: (1) thatputtcnahalli, where the scheduled employment was carried on, was situated beyond 8 k. m. from the periphery of the corporation limits and as such it did not attract the rates of minimum wages fixed for workmen working within the limits of the corporation of the city of Bangalore and within 8 k. m. from the periphery of its limits under the notification issued by the central government fixing the minimum wages; and (2) that the scheduled employment was not being carried on by or under the authority of the central government. Therefore, the central government was not the appropriate government and the state government was the appropriate government; that the wages were being paid as per the minimum wages fixed by the state government; that the 2nd respondent being a central government employee and the central government not being the appropriate government, it had no authority to file the applications and request the 1st respondent to enforce the minimum wages notification issued by the central government. ( 4 ) AS far as the contention based on the place where the scheduled employment was carried on is concerned, on the basis of the report submitted by the deputy commissioner that puttenahalli was situated within 8 k. m. from the periphery of the corporation limits of the city of Bangalore, the 1st respondent negatived the said contention. This finding was not challenged before the learned single judge. Consequently, the learned single judge did not disturb the said finding. No contention is urged before us challenging the said finding. Further, the finding that puttenahalli is situated within 8 k. m. from the periphery of the corporation limits, is based on the report made by the deputy commissioner. It is a finding of fact. Consequently, the learned single judge did not disturb the said finding. No contention is urged before us challenging the said finding. Further, the finding that puttenahalli is situated within 8 k. m. from the periphery of the corporation limits, is based on the report made by the deputy commissioner. It is a finding of fact. Therefore, we have to proceed on the basis that puttenahalli is situated within 8 k. m. from the periphery of the limits of the corporation of the city of Bangalore. ( 5 ) ON the other contention, the 1st respondent held that the scheduled employment took place by or under the authority of the railways inasmuch as the scheduled employment was carried on for the construction of staff quarters as per the terms of the contract entered into by the petitioners with the railways; that under the terms of the contract, the railways had the power of supervision and control on the quality of the material used in the construction work, and also on the construction as such. Therefore, the scheduled employment was being carried on by or under the authority of the railways. Hence the 1st respondent held that the central government was the appropriate government for the purpose of the act. Therefore, the notification issued by the central government under the act fixing the minimum wages to the scheduled employment in the building operations was applicable. ( 6 ) THE 1st respondent also came to the conclusion that the difference between the rates of minimum wages as fixed by the central government and the actual wages paid by the petitioners was as claimed by the 2nd respondent. As far as compensation amount was concerned, even though the statute prescribed that it was open to the authority to award 10 times the difference of the amount, the 1st respondent in exercise of his judicial discretion, awarded the compensation for like sum. ( 7 ) THE learned single judge, on following the earlier decision of this court in bharateeya mazdoor sangh v i. r. r. canteen, 1979 lab. and i. c. noc 30 : 53 fjr 356 has held that the central government is not an appropriate government and it is the state government which is the appropriate government. ( 7 ) THE learned single judge, on following the earlier decision of this court in bharateeya mazdoor sangh v i. r. r. canteen, 1979 lab. and i. c. noc 30 : 53 fjr 356 has held that the central government is not an appropriate government and it is the state government which is the appropriate government. Therefore, the notification issued by the state government fixing the minimum wages for the scheduled employment in building operation is applicable and as such the order passed by the 1st respondent on the basis of the notification issued by the central government fixing the minimum wages for the scheduled employment of building operation is not sustainable. Accordingly, the learned single judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 31-3-1984. Hence this writ appeal is preferred by respondents-1 to 3 in the writ petition. ( 8 ) SRI shailendra kumar, learned additional central government standing counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in this appeal and learned counsel Sri b. c. . Prabhakar, appearing on behalf of the respondents in this appeal have addressed their respective arguments. ( 9 ) IN the light of the several contentions urged on both sides, the point that arisesfor consideration is whether in respect of the scheduled employment in building operation carried on by the petitioners (respondents in the writ appeal) for construction of staff quarters for the railway establishment as contractors, the central government is the appropriate government or not ? ( 10 ) 'appropriate government' is defined under Section 2 (b) of the act as under:"appropriate government" meansi) in relation to any scheduled employment carried on by or under the authority of the central government or a railway administration, or in relation to a mine, oil-field or major port, or any corporation established by a Central Act, the central government, andii) in relation to any other scheduled employment, the state government. " 'scheduled employment' is defined under Section 2 (g) of the act as follows: " 'scheduled employment' means an employment specified in the schedule, or any process or branch of work forming part of such employment. " ( 11 ) THE employment in question falls under entry No. 7 of the schedule to theact inasmuch as it is an employment in building operation. " ( 11 ) THE employment in question falls under entry No. 7 of the schedule to theact inasmuch as it is an employment in building operation. ( 12 ) IT is contended on behalf of the respondents (appellants) by Sri shailendrakumar, learned additional central government standing counsel that as the employment was carried on in the railway establishment viz. , for construction of staff quarters for the railways, in the area belonging to the railway administration, even though the workmen were employed by the contractor who had undertaken the work of construction of staff quarters for the railways, the appropriate government was the central government because the railways had control over the area as well as the construction and the construction was for the railways only. ( 13 ) ON the contrary, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners (respondents in the writ appeal) that even though the scheduled employment was carried on for constructing staff quarters for the railways within the area belonging to the railways, the scheduled employment was under the contractor and the scheduled employment was not carried on by or under the authority of the railways, therefore, the case fell under clause (ii) of Section 2 (b) of the act and not under clause (i ). Hence the state government was the appropriate government. It is further submitted that neither the railways nor the central government had any power or control over the employment of the workmen by the contractor to carry on the building operation work and it was the contractor who employed the workmen and they worked under his control and supervision. Therefore, it did not fall under the first portion of the definition of 'appropriate government. ' ( 14 ) HENCE the point for consideration as already indicated is as to whether having regard to the building operation work in question the 'appropriate government' is the ccntxal government or the state government, within the meaning of Section 2 (b) of the act ? ( 15 ) THE learned additional central government standing counsel has place dreliance on the following decisions in support of his contention that the 'appropriate govi rnment' is the central government: state of maharashtra v mohanlal devichand shah, AIR 1966 SC 189; M/s. Gammon India ltd. , etc. , etc. ( 15 ) THE learned additional central government standing counsel has place dreliance on the following decisions in support of his contention that the 'appropriate govi rnment' is the central government: state of maharashtra v mohanlal devichand shah, AIR 1966 SC 189; M/s. Gammon India ltd. , etc. , etc. V union of India and others, AIR 1974 SC 960 ; labourers working on salal hydro-project v state of jammu and kashmir and others, AIR 1984 SC 177 ; regional provident fund commissioner, Karnataka v workmen, represented by the general secretary, Karnataka provident fund employees' union and another, AIR 1984 SC 1897 ; and m. e. s. builders v union of India and others, W. P. No. 594/1987 of jammu and kashmir (hc ). ( 16 ) WHEREAS the learned counsel for the writ petitioners who are respondents in this appeal, has placed reliance on the following decisions:1) heavy engineering mazdoor union v slate of Bihar and otliers, AIR 1970 SC 82 ; 2) carlsbad mineral water manufacturing co. Ltd. V p. k. sarkar, 1952 (1) lab. L. j. 488, calcutta; 3) bharateeya mazdoor sangh v i. r. r. canteen, 1979 lab. and i. c. noc 30 : 53 fjr 356; 4) abdul rehman abdul gafur v mrs. E. Paul, 1962 (2) lab. L. j. 693, Bombay; 5) Indian naval control board, Kerala v industrial tribunal, ernakulam and another, 1965 (2) lab. L. j. 366, kerala; 6) national textile corporation v industrial tribunal, 1979 lab. and i. c. 1027, allahabad; 7) management of Bihar khadi gramodyog sangh v state of bihar, 1977 lab and i. c. 466, patna; and 8)k. e. koshy and another v state of karnataka, 1988 lab. and i. c. 879, karnataka. ( 17 ) FROM the definition of the expression 'appropriate government' asre produced in para 10 above, it is clear that in order to attract clause (i) of Section 2 (b) of the Act, it is necessary that the scheduled employment is carried on by or under the authority of the central government or a railway administration or in relation to a mine or major port or any corporation established by a Central Act, by the central government. In this case, we are not concerned with the employment carried on in relation to mine or oil field or major port or any corporation established by a Central Act. In this case, we are not concerned with the employment carried on in relation to mine or oil field or major port or any corporation established by a Central Act. We are concerned with the scheduled employment in building operation carried on for construction of staff quarters for the railway establishment undertaken by the contractor. ( 18 ) AS already pointed out, the learned single judge has taken a view that scheduled employment is not carried on under the authority of either the. Central government or the state government. It is carried on under the employer, even though such employment is for the purpose of construction of the work intended for the benefit of the railways; therefore, the appropriate government is the state government and not the central government. We are of the view that the place where the employment is carried on, and for whose benefit the employment is carried on, and under whose control the work connected with the employment is carried on, are the deciding factors in finding out whether the appropriate government is the central government or the state government. The legislative policy of the act is ap parent on the face of the act. It aims at the. Statutory fixation of minimum wages with a view to obviate the chance of exploitation of labour. Therefore, it also becomes necessary to ensure that the wages for the work carried on by a private contractor for the central government or the railways or the state government should not be less than the minimum wages fixed by the central government, or the state government for similar work, if it is carried on directly by the central government or the railways or the state government, as the case may be. ( 19 ) IN stale of maharashtra v mohanlal devichand shall, the Supreme Court considered the question as to the meaning of the 'appropriate government' occurring in the act. In that case the employment in stone breaking and stone crushing, which is one of the scheduled employments under the Act, was carried on by the private contractors by employing the workmen. It was contended that as the scheduled employment was under the contractor and it was not being carried on by or under the authority of the central government the 'appropriate government' was the stale government. It was contended that as the scheduled employment was under the contractor and it was not being carried on by or under the authority of the central government the 'appropriate government' was the stale government. The Supreme Court negatived the contention, and held thus:"in our opinion, as stated in hulsbury's laws of england, third edition, volume 26, p. 317, the word 'mine' is not a definite term, but is one susceptible of limitation or expansion according to the intention with which it is used. In Section 2 (b) of the Act, we have to see the context in which the word has been used. What the legislature is purporting to do is to demarcate the jurisdiction of the state governments and the central government in respect of minimum wages to be paid to persons employed in the employments enumerated in the schedule. Entry 35 in list i of schedule vii of the government of India Act, 1935, was "regulation of labour and safely in mines and oil fields". Entry 36 read "regulation of mines and oil fields and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under dominion control is declared by dominion law to be expedient in the public inlercst". It is not seriously contested that in entries 35 and 36 the word 'mines' would include quarries. The mines Act, 1923 (iv of 1923) which was the existing law when the government of India act came into force, made Provisions regarding health and safety in mines and regulated hours and limitations of employment in the mines. The word 'mine' had been defined to mean any excavation where any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining minerals has been or is being carried on, and includes all works, machinery, tramways and sidings, whether above or below ground, in or adjacent to or belonging to a mine, provided that it shall not include any part of such premises on which a manufacturing process is being carried on unless such process is a process for coke making or the dressing of minerals. Therefore, if we examine the definition of 'appropriate government' in Section 2 (b) in the context and in the background of the government of India act and the existing law, it seems to us that the central legislature must have intended to include quarries in the word 'mine', otherwise it would be rather incongruous that some matters such as liealtli and safety, hours and employment in quarries should be regulated by the central government and minimum wages by the slate governments. Further, there is no indication whatsoever in the act that the word 'mine' has the narrower meaning suggested by the learned counsel for the respondent. "10. If the word 'mine' is held to include a quarry, the next question that arises is whether stone-breaking or stone-crushing in a quarry is within the schedule. While interpreting entry 8 in the schedule, this court observed in madhya pradesh mineral industry association v regional labour commissioner, jabalpur, (1960)3 scr 476 : AIR 1960 SC 1068 as follows:"when we speaking of stone-breaking or stone-crushing, normally we refer to stone in the sense of 'piece of rock' and that would exclude manganese. Employment in stone-breaking or stone-crushing in this sense would refer to quarry operations. "this court thus read entry 8 to refer to quarry operations, and we hold that stone- breaking or stone-crushing in a quarry is within the schedule. 11. Thus reading item 8 of the schedule and Section 2 (b) of the act together, it seems to us that the definition demarcates the jurisdiction of the central government and the state governments in this say; if the employment in stone-breaking or stone-crushing is in a quarry, then it is within the jurisdiction of the central government; if the employment in stone-breaking or stone-crushing is not in a quarry, it is the state government that will have jurisdiction. We are unable to appreciate the observations of the high court that the operation of stone-breaking and stone-crushing in a stone quarry does not fall within item 8 of the schedule and that it is necessary that parliament should amend item 8 of the schedule. We are unable to appreciate the observations of the high court that the operation of stone-breaking and stone-crushing in a stone quarry does not fall within item 8 of the schedule and that it is necessary that parliament should amend item 8 of the schedule. " (emphasis supplied) ( 20 ) THUS the aforesaid decision goes to show that the place of work and the authority who has jurisdiction or the control over the work as well as the place where the work or the employment is carried on, will have a bearing on the question as to whether the central government or the state government is the 'appropriate government. ' ( 21 ) NO doubt Sri prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner stried to distinguish the decision contending that as the stone-breaking and stone- crushing work was being carried on in a mine, it was completely under the control of the central government, hence necessarily, the appropriate government was the central government. Therefore, the decision in the said case turned upon the facts of that case and as such it was not applicable to the case on hand. If that were to be so, there was no difficulty in holding that the employment as such was being carried on by the contractor by or under the authority of the central government, therefore, the central government was the 'appropriate government. ' it is clear from the said decision that the emphasis is on the place where the scheduled employment takes place and the authority who exercises jurisdiction or control over the work as well as the place where the work or the employment is carried on. ( 22 ) IN the instant case, the employment had taken place in the place belonging to the railways and the employment or the work carried on, was for the purpose of construction of staff quarters for the benefit of the railways. The work was being carried on by or under the authority of the railways only. The fact that the contractor had employed the workmen was not a deciding factor because actually the work that was carried on was by or under the authority of the railways only. Hence the decision in state of maharashtra v mohanlal devichand shah, AIR 1966 SC 189 applied to the facts of the case also. The fact that the contractor had employed the workmen was not a deciding factor because actually the work that was carried on was by or under the authority of the railways only. Hence the decision in state of maharashtra v mohanlal devichand shah, AIR 1966 SC 189 applied to the facts of the case also. ( 23 ) IN labourers working on salal hydro-project v state of jammu and kashmirand others, AIR 1984 SC 177 . Hereinafter referred to as (salal hydro-project case) the Supreme Court in unequivocal terms held that as the project work was being carried on by or under the authority of the central government, the central government was the 'appropriate government' in relation to the establishment pertaining to the project work and the contractors were licensed by the licensing officers appointed by the central government. In that case the question was as to whether the minimum wages fixed by the central government were applicable to the workmen engaged by the private contractors for executing different portions of the work under the project i. e. , salal hydro-project. It was held that the central government was the appropriate government since the project was being carried on by or under the authority of the central government and as such the minimum wages fixed by the central government were applicable. However, it so happened that the minimum wages fixed by the central government were less than the minimum wages fixed by the. State government. Therefore, it was further observed that such anomalous situation should be brought to the notice of the central government so that the said anomaly could be removed. ( 24 ) NO doubt, salal hydro-project case, did not specifically refer to the definition of 'appropriate government' under the minimum wages act. The principle laid down therein is that if the. Work executed comes under the. Authority of the central government, the central government is the 'appropriate government. In the instant case also the staff quarters constructed by the contractor were under the control of the railways only and were in fact intended for the railways. Hence under the minimum wages act the central government was the appropriate government. Work executed comes under the. Authority of the central government, the central government is the 'appropriate government. In the instant case also the staff quarters constructed by the contractor were under the control of the railways only and were in fact intended for the railways. Hence under the minimum wages act the central government was the appropriate government. ( 25 ) IN regional provident commissioner, Karnataka v workmen represented bythe general secretary, Karnataka provident fund employees' union and another, AIR 1984 SC 1897 the question considered by the Supreme Court was as to which was the 'appropriate government' under the Industrial Disputes Act. Having regard to the various Provisions of the provident funds act and the nature of the business carried on by the central board, the state board, the regional committee and the regional provident fund commissioner, it was held that the stale government was not the appropriate government under Section 2 (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act in the matter of industrial disputes arising between the management and the workmen of the regional provident fund organisation. ( 26 ) THE definition of 'appropriate government' occurring in Industrial Disputes Act is not mpari materia with that of the one contained in the minimum wages Act, inasmuch as the definition of 'appropriate government' under the Industrial Disputes Act is in relation to an industry carried on by or under the authority of the central government, or by a railway company etc. Whereas the definition of 'appropriate government' under the minimum wages act is in relation to any scheduled employment carried on by or under the central government, or railways etc. , is the central government, and in relation to any other scheduled employment, the state government. In the first one, the deciding factor is as to whether an industry is carried on by or under the authority of the central government or the state or any railway company etc. Whereas in the second one, it is in relation to scheduled employment carried on by or under the authority of the central government or railways etc. If it does not (all under clause (i) of Section 2 (b) of the Act, the state government is the appropriate government. Therefore, the decisions rendered under the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be held to cover the issue involved in the case on hand as to 'appropriate government' under the minimum wages act. If it does not (all under clause (i) of Section 2 (b) of the Act, the state government is the appropriate government. Therefore, the decisions rendered under the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be held to cover the issue involved in the case on hand as to 'appropriate government' under the minimum wages act. ( 27 ) THE learned single judge has proceeded on the basis that the definition of' appropriate government' contained in Section 2 (a) of the contract labour (regulation and abolition) Act, 1970 and the definition of similar expression contained in the minimum wages act are in part materia, whereas it is not so. The definition of 'appropriate government' in the contract labour (regulation and abolition) act is in relation to an establishment pertaining to an industry carried on by or under the authority. Whereas the definition of 'appropriate government' in the minimum wages act is in relation to scheduled employment carried on by or under the authority. Thus the one is relation to an establishment carried on by or under the authority and the another is in relation to scheduled employment. Therefore, the decision rendered under the contract labour (regulation and abolition) act with reference to 'appropriate government' cannot also have full bearing on the issue arising under the minimum wages act as to which is the 'appropriate government'. ( 28 ) THE learned single judge is also of the view that the earlier decision of this court in i. r. r. canteen's case covers the case on hand and that decision is rendered on the basis of the judgments of the Supreme Court in heavy engineering mazdoor sabha and carlsbad mineral water manufacturing co. Case which is approved by the Supreme Court in heavy engineering mazdoor sabha case. Therefore, naturally Sri prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, placed reliance very heavily on i. r. r. canteen's case and heavy engineering mazdoor sabha case and also on carlsbad mineral water manufacturing co. Case. ( 29 ) WE shall first take up heavy engineering mazdoor sabha case. In this case, the expression 'appropriate government' occurring in Industrial Disputes Act was considered. It may be relevant to notice that the dispute arose between the heavy engineering corporation ltd. , and its workmen. The question arose as to whether the corporation carried on the industry by or under the authority of the central government. In this case, the expression 'appropriate government' occurring in Industrial Disputes Act was considered. It may be relevant to notice that the dispute arose between the heavy engineering corporation ltd. , and its workmen. The question arose as to whether the corporation carried on the industry by or under the authority of the central government. It was held that the words "under the authority of mean pursuant to the authority such as where an agent or a servant acts under or pursuant to the authority of his principal or master. Obviously a company incorporated under the companies Act, as is well known, has a separate existence and the law recognises it as a juristic person, separate and distinct from its members. This new personality emerges from the moment of its incorporation and begins to function as an entity. It was also held that a mere fact that the entire share capital was contributed by the central government and all its shares were held by the president and certain officers of the central government, did not make any difference. The company and the shareholders being, distinct entities, the fact that (he president and certain officers held all its shares did not make the company an agent cither of the president or the central government. It was also further held that certain extensive powers were conferred upon the central government, including the power to give directions as to how the company should function, the power to appoint directors and even the power to determine the wages and salaries payable by the company to its employees. But these powers were derived from the company's memorandum of association and articles of association and not by reason of the company being the agent of the central government. The question whether the corporation was the agent of the state government must depend on the facts of each case. Where a statute setting up a corporation so provided such a corporation could easily be identified as the agent of the state as in graham v public works commissioners, 1901 (2) kb 781. In the absence of a statutory provision, however, a commercial Corporation Acting on its own behalf even though it was controlled wholly or partially by government department, will be ordinarily presumed not to be a servant or agent of the government. In the absence of a statutory provision, however, a commercial Corporation Acting on its own behalf even though it was controlled wholly or partially by government department, will be ordinarily presumed not to be a servant or agent of the government. The definition of the word 'employer' as contained in the Industrial Disputes Act was also taken into consideration. It was held that the definition of the word 'employer' on the contrary suggested that an industry carried on by or under the authority of the government meant cither the industry carried on directly by a department of the government such as the posts and telegraphs or the railways or one carried on by such department through the instrumentality of an agent. Therefore, it was held that the central government was not the appropriate government. The state government was the appropriate government. ( 30 ) THUS from the aforesaid decision, it is clear that the question as to whether the central or the state government was the appropriate government was decided on the basis as to whether the industry was being carried on by or under the authority of the state government or central government. It was held that the state government was the 'appropriate government' because the company was not the agent of the central government. ( 31 ) IN the instant case, as already pointed out, the place where the schedule demployment is carried on and for whose benefit the employment is carried on and under whose control the work connected with the employment is carried on, are the deciding factors and not the fact as to who actually employs the workmen. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that heavy engineering mazdoor union's case governs the case where the scheduled employment is carried on in a place over which the central government or the railways, as the case may be, has control and the work is actually being carried on for the benefit of the central government or the railways over which the central government, or the railways, as the case may be, has got full control. Therefore, the decision in heavy engineering mazdoor union's case docs not apply to the case on hand. In carlsbad mineral water manufacturing co. Ltd. Case, the company entered into a contract to supply mineral water to the central government. Therefore, the decision in heavy engineering mazdoor union's case docs not apply to the case on hand. In carlsbad mineral water manufacturing co. Ltd. Case, the company entered into a contract to supply mineral water to the central government. It was held that a mere fact that the company had entered into a contract to supply certain of its products, could not bring the industry as carried on by or under the authority of the central government, therefore, it was held that the state government was the appropriate authority. The reasons stated by us for holding that the decision in heavy engineering mazdoor union case does not apply to the case on hand will equally apply to the carlsbad mineral water manufacturing co. Ltd. Case also. ( 32 ) AS far as bharateeya mazdoor sangh's case is concerned 1979 lab. and i. c. noc 30 : 53 fjr 356, following the decisions in heavy engineering mazdoor union case and carlsbad mineral water manufacturing co. Ltd. Case, it has been held therein that a canteen run by a private person in the railway premises under the terms and conditions of the licence and with the help or assistance of the railway department cannot be regarded as an agent of the railways; consequently, the canteen is not carried on under the authority of the railway administration. It has also been further held that it is obligatory for the railways to provide canteen facilities for the passengers and the visitors to a railway station; that the railway authorities provide for the necessary accommodation and furniture for running a canteen; therefore, it is quite natural that railway authorities exercise certain control and-supervision over such canteens. This does not however, convert a canteen run by a private person under a licence from the railway authorities, into a canteen run under the authority of railways. ( 33 ) WE are of the view that in i. r. r. canteen case, the essential factors such as the place where the canteen was carried on and for whose benefit the canteen was carried on have not received due consideration. The canteen was carried on in the railway establishment and for the benefit of the railways. The railways had full control over the place in which the canteen was carried on. The canteen was to be carried on in the prescribed manner. The canteen was carried on in the railway establishment and for the benefit of the railways. The railways had full control over the place in which the canteen was carried on. The canteen was to be carried on in the prescribed manner. There was a control over the quality of food items and also the working hours of the canteen exercised by the railways. These essential factors were indicative of the fact that the actual running of the canteen was under the control of the railways and for the benefit of the railways. Thus the canteen was carried on under the authority of the railways. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the decision in i. r. r. canteen's case that the canteen run by a private person in the railways establishment under the contract entered into with the railways for the benefit of the railways the central government is not the appropriate authority. Hence we are of the view that the decision in i. r. r. canteen's case docs not lay down the law correctly. When the canteen is run in the railway establishment, over which the railways has got full control, the mere fact that it is run by a private contractor with his own workmen docs not take away the control of the railways and the railways do not cease to have control over it. Therefore, the appropriate government for the purpose of minimum wages would be the central government and not the state government, as defined under Section 2 (b) of the act. Accordingly, the decision in i. r. r. canteen's case is overruled. ( 34 ) THE other decisions at serial nos. 4 to 7 as referred to in para 16 above as having been relied upon by Sri prabhakar, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, are under the Industrial Disputes Act and they are more or less on the very same lines of the decision in heavy engineering mazdoor union case which we have already considered. Therefore, for the reasons already stated it is not possible to hold that the said decisions are applicable to the case on hand, because, those decisions deal with the industry or the business being carried on by the company or a private individual and not by or under the authority of the central government. Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to deal with them in greater detail. Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to deal with them in greater detail. ( 35 ) THE decision in,k. e. koshy and another v state, 1988 labour and industrial cases 879 is rendered by a learned single judge of this court. In that case the expression 'appropriate govcrnnic. nl' as defined under Section 2 (a) of the equal remuneration Act, 1976 is considered. The definition of the expression 'appropriate government' is no doubt is in part materia with the definition of the similar expression contained in Section 2 (b) of the minimum wages Act, 1948. The decision is rendered following the decision of this court in i. r. r. canteen's case and heavy engineering mazdoor union case and also the decision under appeal in question. As we have held that heavy engineering mazdoor union case does not apply to the case on hand as it does not cover the aspects involved in the case on hand and the decision in i. r. r. canteen's case does not decide the question correctly, it follows that the decision in k. e. koshy's case docs not lay down the law correctly. No doubt it has also referred to another decision in food corporation of India workers' union v food corporation of india, (1985)66 fjr 444 sc. In the said decision the Supreme Court has decided the question as to the meaning of the expression 'appropriate government' occurring in Section 2 (1 ) (a) of the contract labour (regulation and abolition) Act, 1970. That definition is in relation to any establishment pertaining to any industry carried on by or under the authority of the central government and not to any scheduled employment. Therefore, it is also not possible to hold that the decision in food corporation of India workers' union case governs the case on hand. Consequently, we are also of the view that k. e. kosliy's case does not decide the question as to which is the 'appropriate government' under equal remuneration Act, 1976 correctly. Accordingly, it is overruled. ( 36 ) IN the view we take, we do not consider it necessary to refer to the decisions in M/s. Gammon India ltd. , etc. , etc. V union of India and in m. e. s. builders' case relied upon by the learned additional central government standing counsel. Accordingly, it is overruled. ( 36 ) IN the view we take, we do not consider it necessary to refer to the decisions in M/s. Gammon India ltd. , etc. , etc. V union of India and in m. e. s. builders' case relied upon by the learned additional central government standing counsel. ( 37 ) FOR the reasons stated above, we hold that the central government is the 'appropriate government'. Therefore, the minimum wages notification issued by the central government was applicable to the wages payable to the workmen engaged in building operation for constructing the staff quarters for the railways by the writ petitioners under the contract entered into with the railways. Consequently, it fol lows that the writ appeal has to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. The order under appeal is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. ( 38 ) ). In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .