JUDGMENT - M.F. SALDANHA, J.:---This petition raises an issue of considerable importance as also of far-reaching social consequence. It is, therefore, necessary to briefly set out the controversy in issue. 2. The petitioner No. 1 M/s. Militant Security Bureau Pvt. Ltd., is a private limited company and the petitioner No. 2 is a Director thereof. The business of the petitioners were that of supplying personnel to the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. for being stationed at the different buildings mentioned on page 3 of the petition. These are the various buildings wherein Government officers reside and include such places as the MLA's Hostel. The Government Labour Officer and Inspector instituted a prosecution before the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Dadar, Bombay being Criminal Case No. 490/S of 1986 against the petitioners on the ground that they have not conformed with the requirements of the Minimum Wages Act and the rules framed thereunder. The petitioners filed the present petition challenging the institution of that prosecution. One of the principal grounds of challenge is that the petitioners were essentially acting as agents of the Executive Engineer in the matter of providing the requisite number of staff at these buildings and that the rates of salary payable to these employees were prescribed by the Executive Engineer pursuant to negotiations. The Executive Engineer being a Government authority, was asked to fix the scales in keeping with the Minimum Wages Act which the Executive Engineer had not done. It is, therefore, the contention of the petitioners that whereas one arm of the State Government viz., the Executive Engineer is alleged to have paid the salaries to the petitioners which in turn were disbursed to their employees, at a scale lower than the one prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, that there could be no question of another authority of the same Government prosecution the petitioners on the ground that defaults have been committed. The further contention advanced is that the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act don not apply to the petitioners. 3. Miss. Raut, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has, in the first instance, contended that the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act do not apply because, admittedly, the employees in question were stationed as, liftmen at different residential buildings and as pointed out by her, these buildings can either come under the definition of "shop" or "commercial establishment". Miss. Raut, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has, in the first instance, contended that the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act do not apply because, admittedly, the employees in question were stationed as, liftmen at different residential buildings and as pointed out by her, these buildings can either come under the definition of "shop" or "commercial establishment". She further points out that a scrutiny of Schedule-Part I to the Minimum Wages Act will indicate that the building where the liftmen were working would not come within the compass of any of the establishment enumerated in Part I. 4. Miss Raut then raised a second contention viz., that the minimum wages payable to an employee who is obliged to work at a factory or an establishment are dependent on the minimum wages prescribed for that industry or that type of employment which varies from industry to industry. She has, therefore, contended that the Act cannot be made applicable in vacuum because the immediate question would arise as to what standard or what quantum of minimum wages will have to be paid to the employees in question and in the absence of these residential building fitting into any of the definitions of Part I of the Schedule, that it would not be possible to quantify the minimum wages. 5. A against this, Mr. Patil, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the first submission is misconceived in so far as according to him, the test is not as to whether the residential buildings where the employees are stationed can conform to the subjects specified under Part I of the Schedule. Mr. Patil points out that the petitioners are running a private limited company and that the persons who are contracted to work at these buildings in different parts of Bombay are all employees of the private limited company in question. It may be that these persons are stationed at different places in the city, and it also may be that just one or two of them may be deployed at each of these buildings. Mr. Patil submits that this issue is irrelevant because, admittedly, the business of the petitioners is that of making available the services of these employees in return for which they are paid a certain consideration and consequently, the hiring and employment of these persons is the business activity of the petitioners. Mr. Patil submits that this issue is irrelevant because, admittedly, the business of the petitioners is that of making available the services of these employees in return for which they are paid a certain consideration and consequently, the hiring and employment of these persons is the business activity of the petitioners. He, therefore submits that M/s. Militant Security Bureau Pvt. Ltd., viz., that the first petitioner company, would come within the definition of "establishment" and would be covered by Item 17 because the Shops and Establishments Act would be applicable to that establishment. As regards the second submission canvassed by Miss Raut, Mr. Patil, on instructions, states that there are various types of establishments which do not conform to particular definitions of a type of industry and that, in such cases, under the Shops and Establishments Act, a minimum wage has been prescribed for persons employed in such establishments. He therefore, submits that the obligation of the petitioners to pay its employees the minimum wages prescribed for such establishments was a legal obligation and that the prosecutions against them for not complying with these obligations were justified. 6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, which are undoubtedly not only unusual but are peculiar, the submissions advanced by Mr. Patil will have to be upheld. Mr. Patil is justified in pointing out that regardless of the deployment of one or two persons at each building, that the totality of employees vis-a-vis the petitioner No. 1 company would give rise to the relationship of master and servant between the petitioners and those employees. It is quite irrelevant as to how many of them are posted at which part of the city in so far as the petitioner No. 1 would come within the definition of "establishment" as defined under the Shops Establishments Act and would, therefore, come within the ambit of Item 17 of Part I of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act. In this view of the matter, it will have to be held that the Minimum Wages Act is applicable to the establishment of the petitioners. 7. Once it is held that the provisions of the Act are applicable, the corresponding obligations would automatically apply and, therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution of the petitioners was unjustified. 8. In this view of the matter, it will have to be held that the Minimum Wages Act is applicable to the establishment of the petitioners. 7. Once it is held that the provisions of the Act are applicable, the corresponding obligations would automatically apply and, therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution of the petitioners was unjustified. 8. It is true, as pointed out by Miss Raut, that the starting point of the trouble appears to have been created by the Government authority i.e. the Executive Engineer, who did not conform to the requirements of the Minimum Wages Act, even though requested to do so. Miss Raut has drawn my specific attention to the fact that the petitioners had asked for the payment of the salaries to their employees as per the Minimum Wages Act. Mr. patil has, from his record, pointed out that at a subsequent point of time, the authorities had conceded to this demand and that consequently, there is no justification for the non-payment at least at that stage. These, however, are disputed questions of fact which this Court will not go into in so far as no interference with the prosecution is called for. It would be open to the respective parties to raise these contentions before the trial Court and for that matter, it would also be open to the petitioners to point out that the trial Court should take into consideration the fact that they were prevented from paying the minimum wages because of the default on the part of the Government authority, who in turn, was required to pay them at that prescribed scale. 9. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for at this stage. The petition fails and stands rejected. The interim reliefs to stand vacated. Petition fails. -----