H. L. DATTU, J. ( 1 ) THE matter is listed in the orders list. By consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. ( 2 ) SINCE common question of facts and law are involved in all these writ petitions, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed off by this common order. ( 3 ) PETITIONERS are weighmen. They had a licence issued by the respondent-APMC in exercise of its powers under Rule 79 of the Karnataka agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1968 ("rules' for short ). The life of the licence is only for an year. After the expiry of the licence period, petitioners-weighmen have approached the respondent-APMC for grant of a fresh licence/renewal for the period 2001-02. The request made by them was considered by the APMC in its meeting held on 15-5-2001. They have resolved that the request of the weighmen for renewal of licence would be considered, only if the weighmen undertake to execute an agreement, undertaking to follow the licensing conditions and would not demand for payment of minimum wages under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. They have further resolved that if such an undertaking is not furnished by the petitioners-weighmen, their applications for renewal should be rejected. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid resolution made by the respondent-APMC, petitioners-weighmen are before this Court in these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. In that firstly, they request this Court to quash that portion in the impugned resolution, wherein it is stated that the petitioners should give up their rights under the Minimum Wages Act to consider their request for renewal of weighmen's licence and secondly, for a direction to respondents to consider their request for renewal of licence and to pay them the benefits under the award dated 5-2-2001. ( 5 ) THIS Court while entertaining these writ petitions, by its order dated 18-10-2001 had granted an interim order of stay, staying the impugned resolution. ( 6 ) DURING the pendency of these writ petitions, the respondent by its communication dated 22-3-2002 has once again directed the petitionersweighmen herein to give an undertaking that they would not demand the minimum wages under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act to consider their request for renewal of weighmen's licence. ( 6 ) DURING the pendency of these writ petitions, the respondent by its communication dated 22-3-2002 has once again directed the petitionersweighmen herein to give an undertaking that they would not demand the minimum wages under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act to consider their request for renewal of weighmen's licence. ( 7 ) BRIEF history of the case is as under: petitioners are carrying on with their activities as weighmen by obtaining appropriate licence right from the year 1993 in the respondent-APMC yard. The respondent-APMC is constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (the Act' for short ). It is 'other authority' as envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution. It appears, a Labour Inspector attached to the office of the Labour Department had inspected respondent-APMC and objected for non-payment of the minimum wages by respondent-APMC to the petitioners-weighmen under the provisions of the Minimum wages Act. ( 8 ) ON an application filed by the weighmen, the Competent Authority, after hearing the respondent-APMC has passed an award dated 5-2-2001 declaring that the petitioners-weighmen are entitled for minimum wages under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and has further directed the respondent-APMC to pay the minimum wages under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. ( 9 ) AGGRIEVED by the said award, it appears the respondent-APMC has questioned the same before this Court. Sri B. G. Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that this Court has passed an interim order staying the award made by the Competent authority under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. ( 10 ) IT is not in dispute nor it can be disputed that petitioners-weighmen herein are holding a licence as weighmen right from the year 1993. The licence that is granted is for a period of one year. After the expiry of the licence period, petitioners-weighmen have approached the respondent-APMC for renewal of their licence as envisaged under Rule 79 of the Rules. While considering the applications so filed, respondent-APMC has resolved that if petitioners-weighmen give an undertaking that they would not claim minimum wages under the provisions of the Minimum wages Act, their application would be considered. After the expiry of the licence period, petitioners-weighmen have approached the respondent-APMC for renewal of their licence as envisaged under Rule 79 of the Rules. While considering the applications so filed, respondent-APMC has resolved that if petitioners-weighmen give an undertaking that they would not claim minimum wages under the provisions of the Minimum wages Act, their application would be considered. ( 11 ) SRI Rajagopal, learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the resolution passed by the respondent-APMC is wholly arbitrary, illegal and without authority of law and further submits that the respondent-APMC for considering the reasonable request of the petitioners-weighmen cannot curtail the rights of the workman sanctioned under a beneficial social legislation. Secondly, the resolution of respondent-APMC is opposed to procedure prescribed under Rule 79 of the Rules. Therefore, states that the resolution passed by the APMC dated 15-5-2001 requires to be annulled by this Court and further direction requires to be issued to renew the weighmen licences of the petitioners. ( 12 ) PER contra Sri B. G. Sridharan, learned Counsel appearing for apmc submits that petitioners-weighmen are not entitled to minimum wages under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, respondent-APMC has passed a resolution, resolving to consider the application filed by the petitioners-weighmen for renewal of their licence under the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules, provided they give an undertaking that they would not claim the minimum wages under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. ( 13 ) TO appreciate the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties to the Us, provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules requires to be noticed. Therefore, it is extracted and it reads as under:"79. Licenced weighmen, measurers, surveyors, hamals, cartmen, public carrier, etc. (1) No person shall operate as a weighman, measurer, surveyor, hamali, cartman, owner of public carrier or as any other market functionary in any market area except under a licence in Form 37 granted by the market committee. (2) Any person desires to hold a licence to operate in the market area as a. (i) Weighman, measurer, surveyor shall apply in Form 44; (ii) Hamal, cartman, owner of public carrier or as any other market functionary shall apply in Form 45, and shall also pay such fee not exceeding rupees one hundred as may be specified in the bye-laws. On receipt of such application the market committee may, if it finds no grounds to refuse, grant or renew the licence in Form 37. On the grant of such licence the applicant shall execute an agreement in such form as the market committee may determine, agreeing to comply with these rules and the bye-laws of the market committee. (3) The licence granted under sub-rule (2) shall, unless renewed, remain in force till the end of the market year in which it has been granted. (4) No person shall be entitled to do business as a market functionary other than that for which he holds a licence". ( 14 ) SUB-RULE (1) of Rule 79 of the Rules mandates that no person can operate as a market functionary in any market area except under a licence issued in Form 37 granted by the market committee. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 79 says that if a person wants to hold a licence as a weighman, measurer, surveyor, he shall file an application in Form 44 by paying the prescribed fee. On receipt of such application, the market committee if it finds that there are no grounds to reject the same, grant or renew the licence in Form 37. After such grant, the applicant for the licence is expected to execute an agreement in such form as the market committee may determine, agreeing to comply with the rules and bye-laws of the market committee. The licence so granted remains in force till the end of the market year in which it has been granted. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 79 says that no person would be entitled to do a business as a market functionary other than for which he holds the licence. Sub-rule (5) of rule 6 are not relevant for the purpose of the case, therefore, they are not noticed. Nowhere in the rules, it is contemplated to consider the application for grant of licence or renewal of the license, the market committee could insist on the applicant to waive his right under any other beneficial social legislation. At the most, it could, that too after the grant of the licence in Form 37 direct the licensee to execute an agreement to comply with the rules and bye-laws of the market committee and nothing beyond that. At the most, it could, that too after the grant of the licence in Form 37 direct the licensee to execute an agreement to comply with the rules and bye-laws of the market committee and nothing beyond that. (emphasis supplied) ( 15 ) IN the instant case, it is not in dispute that petitioners herein have filed an application for renewal of their licence as weighmen by paying the prescribed fee as required under the rules. On receipt of such application, it is expected of the respondent-APMC to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. After grant of licence, market committee is authorised to direct the licensee to execute an agreement in such form as the market committee may determine, agreeing to comply with the rules and bye-laws of the market committee. In the present case, the respondent-APMC has passed a resolution dated 15-5-2001, directing the petitioners-weighmen that their applications will be considered only if they give an undertaking before them, that they would not claim the minimum wages under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. I am of the view, the resolution passed by the respondent-APMC is arbitrary, contrary to the rules. Respondent-APMC can direct the petitionersweighmen to execute an agreement only after the applications of the applicants are considered and licences are issued. Even while directing petitioners-weighmen to execute an agreement, what can be done is to direct them to comply with the rules and bye-laws of the market committee, and at any rate, they cannot direct them to give an undertaking that they would not claim a particular benefit under a particular beneficial legislation. Therefore, the resolution passed by respondent-APMC is wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to statutory provisions. ( 16 ) IN that view of the matter, the resolution passed by the respondent-APMC cannot be sustained by this Court. In the result, these petitions deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, they are allowed. Rule made absolute. The impugned resolution passed by the respondent-APMC dated 15-5-2001 is set aside. Respondent-APMC is directed to consider the applications filed by the petitioners for grant of a licence/renewal for the years 2001-02 and 2002-03 in accordance with law and strictly in accordance with Rule 79 of the Rules as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within 45 days from today. All the other contentions of both the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .