Judgment :- T. MEENAKUMARI, J. The writ petitions are for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records connected with P.W. cases Nos. 49, 50, 51, 59, 60 and 61 of 1991 on the file of the first respondent Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and quash the order, dated October 31, 1992. Learned counsel for the petitioner-management has argued that due to a bandh on July 20, 1990 the petitioner-company declared holiday on July 20, 1990 and declared September 30, 1990 as a working day. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that having availed the holiday on July 20, 1990, the respondents wanted to avail the holiday on September 30, 1990 which happened to be a declared holiday due to Dasara. The wages were not paid on September 30, 1990. The respondents workmen approached the competent authority under the Payment of Wages Act on the ground that they are entitled for the wages on September 30, 1990 which happened to be a declared holiday. Learned counsel has argued that the authority has no jurisdiction to order for payment of wages on the said date as per Sec. 1(6) of the Payment of Wages Act as the wages of the respondents exceeded Rs. 1, 600 per month and the authority ought to have rejected the claim of the respondents. Section 1(6) of the Act reads that nothing in this Act shall apply to wages payable in respect of a wage period which, over such wage period, average one thousand six hundred rupees a month or more. Ms. A. V. Bharathi, learned counsel appointed as amicus curiae for the respondents has argued that wages were not paid to the workmen who happened to be the members of the minority union and they have approached the authority on the ground that settlement under Section 18(1) of the Act is not binding on them.I am of the view that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has committed an error in deciding the matter without reference to Section 1(6) of the Act. Under the circumstances the impugned orders are quashed. The writ petitions are allowed. No costs. However, the matter is remanded back to the first respondent to reconsider the matter afresh with reference to the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act and also on merits. The fee of the counsel Ms. Under the circumstances the impugned orders are quashed. The writ petitions are allowed. No costs. However, the matter is remanded back to the first respondent to reconsider the matter afresh with reference to the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act and also on merits. The fee of the counsel Ms. A. V. Bharathi who has been appointed as amicus curiae to appear for the respondents, is fixed at Rs. 500 (Rupees five hundred only) in each of the writ petitions and the Legal Aid, Madras, is directed to pay the said amount to Ms. A. V. Bharathi, learned counsel. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 4909 to 4914 of 1992 for stay are closed.