A. K. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the food Corporation of India Workers Union for a writ/direction on the Food Corporation of india to pay wages to the workers in cash and not in cheque. The facts relevant for disposal of these writ petitions briefly are that by a circular dated June 7, 2001, the Manager (IR-Labour), Food Corporation of India, headquarters, New Delhi, informed all Zonal managers and Senior Regional Managers of the food Corporation of India that it had been brought to the notice of the headquarters of the food Corporation of India that for disbursement of salary to the departmental/dps workers huge cash is to be drawn from the Banks which involves a risk of loss of money due to robbery, dacoity etc. besides a threat of security to the staff/cashier carrying such money and that the matter has been examined in consultation with the Finance and it had been decided that the salary/wages will be disbursed to the departmental/dps workers through cheque whosoever demands so on voluntary basis. In the said circular dated june 7, 2001, the Manager (IR-Labour) also issued instructions that the concerned labourers may be advised to open their Savings Bank accounts in a Bank so that there would not be any difficulty in disbursing their wages through cheque. Pursuant to the said circular dated June 7, 2001, payment of salary/wages to departmental/dps worker was being made by cheques only if the employee concerned opted for such payment by cheque and not otherwise. This arrangement to make payment by cheques to employees on optional basis continued until the Deputy Manager (IR) in the Regional Office of the Food Corporation of India. Orissa. Bhubaneswar, informed the District Managers of Food Corporation of India at Balasore, berhampur, Bhubaneswar, Cuttack, Jeypore, sambalpur and Titilagarh by his letter dated february 5, 2004 that a communication dated january 29, 2004 has been received from the headquarters laying emphasis on payment of wages to the departmental/dps workers only by cheques. The representatives of the petitioner-union raised objections to such payment to the employees by cheques without any discussion with them and pointed out the difficulties that employees would face in encashing the cheques received by them. The representatives of the petitioner-union raised objections to such payment to the employees by cheques without any discussion with them and pointed out the difficulties that employees would face in encashing the cheques received by them. The deputy Manager (IR) of the Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office, Calcutta then sent a communication dated February 13, 2004 to the senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of india, Orissa, Bhubaneswar requesting him to ensure encashment of cheques and payment thereof to avoid attraction of the penal provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Many of the employees also addressed representations to different District Managers of the Food Corporation of India indicating their difficulties in receiving payment of their wages by cheques. The petitioner-Union has filed W. P. (C) No. 2928 of 2004 for quashing the communication dated February 5, 2004 of the Regional Office of the Food Corporation of india of the Orissa Region to the District managers of the Food Corporation of India in the Orissa Region and for a writ of mandamus on the opposite parties to pay the wages of the employees in consonance with Section 6 of the payment of Wages Act, 1936. ( 2 ) ON March 15, 2003, this Court while issuing notice in the writ petition passed an interim order in Misc. Case No. 3095 of 2004 directing that in the meanwhile the opposite parties will strictly follow the provisions of section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and make payment of wages in current coin or currency note, or in both, except when the employee concerned gives the written authorisation for payment of wages in cheque or for crediting the amount in his bank account. Thereafter, the Deputy Manager (IR) of the office of the senior Regional Manager, Food corporation of India, Orissa, Bhubaneswar communicated to the District Managers of orissa Region that the wages of all the departmental/dps workers be paid strictly in accordance with the said interim order dated march 15, 2004 passed by this Court and the provisions of Section 6 read with Section 1 (6)of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Section 1 (6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 provides that nothing in the said 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. Section 1 (6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 provides that nothing in the said 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. At a meeting of the District Managers of the orissa Region in the office of the senior regional Manager of the Food Corporation of india at Bhubaneswar held on April 18, 2004 it was decided to disburse payment of wages/salary to the labourers above Rs. 1,600/- through cheques. The petitioner-Union has filed a fresh writ petition W. P. (C) No. 5736 of 2004 praying for quashing the aforesaid communication dated February 30, 2004 of the deputy Manager (IR) of the office of the senior regional Manager of the Food Corporation of india, Bhubaneswar and the decision of the district Manager. Orissa Region taken on april 18, 2004 to disburse payment of wage/salary to the labourers above Rs. 1,600/-through cheques. On May 21, 2004, a vacation Judge of this Court while issuing notice in the said writ petition W. P. (C) No. 5736 of 2004 directed by this interim order dated May 21, 2004 in Misc. Case No. 5816 of 2004 to pay monthly wages to the workers in the shape of cash or coin for the month of april, 2004. ( 3 ) THE opposite parties then filed s. L. P. (Civil) Nos. 10953-10954 of 2004 in the supreme Court against the interim order dated march 15, 2004 passed in Misc. Case No. 3059 of 2004 in W. P. (C) No. 2928 of 2004 and the interim order dated (sic) May 21, 2004 of the vacation Judge of this Court in Misc. Case No. 5816 of 2004 in W. P. (C) No. 5736 of 2004 and the said two Special Leave Petitions were disposed of by a Vacation Bench of the supreme Court on June 14, 2004 with the following order:"heard both the sides. The petitioner-Food Corporation of India is directed to pay the accrued wages for the months of February, March and April, 2004 within two weeks. Out of the total amounts due, Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) shall be paid in cash and the rest of the amounts shall be paid by way of cheques to each of the workers. This direction is only by way of an interim measure. Out of the total amounts due, Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) shall be paid in cash and the rest of the amounts shall be paid by way of cheques to each of the workers. This direction is only by way of an interim measure. As regards the mode of payment of wages to the workers, this order shall not be taken as a view expressed by us. To this extent, the impugned orders are modified. The High Court shall dispose of the writ petitions at an early date. The special petitions are disposed of accordingly. "thereafter, these two writ petitions were heard by this Court on August 9, 2004 and August 16, 2004. ( 4 ) AT the hearing, Mr. Sanjeet Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that under the earlier circular dated June 7, 2001 option was given to the departmental and dps workers to take their salary/wages in cheque and there was no compulsion for such departmental/dps workers to take their salary/wages in cheques. The impugned communication dated February 5, 2004 of the deputy Manager (IR), Food Corporation of india, Regional Office, Bhubaneswar to all the district Managers in Orissa Region for making payment of wages to departmental/dps workers only by cheque is illegal as it takes away such option of the workers to receive salary/wages in cash or cheques. He submitted that most of the departmental/dps workers are illiterates and rustic people and are not aware of the banking procedures and will suffer immense hardship if they are paid their salary/wages in cheques instead of cash. He submitted, that it is for this reason that a provision has been made in Section 6 of the payment of Wages Act, 1936 that all wages shall be paid in current coin or in currency notes or in both. He pointed that similarly Section 11 (1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 provides that the minimum wages payable under the said Act shall be paid in cash. He also referred to the provisions of Section 2 (21) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, Section 2 (s)of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and section 2 (22) of the Employees' State insurance Act, 1948 in support of his contention that "salary or wages" means cash to be paid to the employee. Mr. He also referred to the provisions of Section 2 (21) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, Section 2 (s)of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and section 2 (22) of the Employees' State insurance Act, 1948 in support of his contention that "salary or wages" means cash to be paid to the employee. Mr. Mohanty submitted that Article 43 of the Constitution of india provides that the State shall endeavour to secure by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, "a living wage" and "a living wage" would mean wage paid in cash and not through cheque. He referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Express Newspaper (Private) Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others, AIR 1958 sc 578 : 1961-I-LLJ-339, Standard Vacuum refining Co. of India v. Its Workmen and another AIR 1961 SC 895 : 1961-I-LLJ-227, workmen represented by Secretary v. Management of Reptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. and another AIR 1992 SC 504 : 1992 (1) SCC 290 1992-I-LLJ-340, in which the concept of "living wage" has been discussed at length. He submitted relying on the decision of the supreme Court in M. R. F. Ltd. v. Inspector, kerala Government and others AIR 1999 SC 188 : 1998 (8) SCC 227 : 1999-I-LLJ-289, that while deciding what restrictions on the rights of the citizens under Article 19 of the constitution are reasonable, the Court has to keep in mind the Directive Principles of State policy and argued that the Food Corporation of india which is an instrumentality of the State therefore cannot ignore the provision of Article 43 of the Constitution to the effect that the State shall endeavour to secure "a living wage" for the workers. ( 5 ) MR. Mohanty also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Gestetner Duplicators pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West bengal AIR 1979 SC 607 : 1979 (2) SCC 354 and submitted that "salary" and "wages" connote one and the same thing, namely, remuneration or payment for the work done or services rendered, but while the expression "salary" is generally used in connection with services of a higher or non-manual type, the expression "wages" is used in connection with manual services. According to Mr. According to Mr. Mohanty, the fact that some of the employees are drawing salary and not wages therefore is of no consequence on the question as to whether payment to an employee should be made in cash or in cheque. He submitted that perhaps the only restriction on the obligation of the employer to pay wages and salary in cash is the provision in Section 40-A of the Income Tax act, 1961 that any expenses incurred by the assessee for a sum exceeding twenty thousand rupees will not be allowed as a deduction to the full extent unless such an expenditure is made by a crossed cheque drawn on a bank or by a crossed bank draft. In this context, Mr. Mohanty referred to the instructions of the Joint manager (IR- Labour), Food Corporation of india, New Delhi to the Regional Officer of the food Corporation of India, Bhubaneswar in the communication dated June 11, 2004 annexed to the additional affidavit of the petitioner filed on July 13, 2004 in W. P. (C) No. 2928 of 2004 in which the decision of the Food Corporation of India, Headquarters, New Delhi with the approval of the Managing Director of the corporation has been communicated that to maintain good and peaceful industrial relation payment of wages for the month of March, april and May, 2004 shall be made in cash upto rs. 20,000/- only or by cheque as per choice of each individual worker without prejudice to the stand of the Food Corporation of India in the S. L. P. pending before the Supreme Court. Mr Mohanty submitted that it has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 11 : 1994 (6) SCC 651 and State of U. P. and another v. Johri Mal 2004 (4) SCC 714 that the Court can interfere in an administrative decision if the administrative decision is shown to be irrational or unreasonable. He vehemently argued that in this case the authorities have taken a totally irrational and unreasonable view in the impugned communication dated February 5, 2004 that payment of wages to the departmental and DPS workers of the Food Corporation of india will be made only by cheque and not by cash. ( 6 ) MR. He vehemently argued that in this case the authorities have taken a totally irrational and unreasonable view in the impugned communication dated February 5, 2004 that payment of wages to the departmental and DPS workers of the Food Corporation of india will be made only by cheque and not by cash. ( 6 ) MR. S. K. Nayak learned counsel appearing for the Food Corporation of India, on the other hand, relying on the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Food corporation of India submitted that payment of salary/wages by cash to the departmental and dps workers was in vogue till November, 2003 but had to be dispensed with because (i) a larger number of workers demanded payment of their wages by cheque (ii) the amount payable to each individual worker was heavy and it became difficult on the part of the organisation to handle liquid cash without adequate security, and (iii) security personnel on requisition are not available as their services are required for maintaining iaw and order situation and other emergencies. He submitted that sub-section (6)of Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 provides that it shall not apply to wages of sixteen hundred rupees a month or more and most of the departmental and DPS workers of the Food Corporation of India draw wages of rs. 1,600/- or more per month. He submitted that therefore the provision in Section 6 of the payment of Wages Act that all wages shall be paid in current coin or currency notes or in both is not applicable to wages drawn by the departmental and DPS workers of the Food corporation of India. In this context, he referred to Circular No. 5/2003 dated March 13, 2003 of the Deputy Manager (IR-L), Food corporation of India, Headquarters, New delhi filed along with the affidavit dated august 5, 2004 in which the revised minimum guaranteed daily wages for the departmental and DPS workers have been stated to be Rs. 116/- per day for Handling Labour, Rs. 97/-per day for Ancillary Labour, Rs. 126/- per day for Sardar and Rs. 119/- per day for Mandal and submitted that the average monthly wages calculated on the basis of such daily wages would be more than Rs. 1,600/ -. Finally, Mr. 116/- per day for Handling Labour, Rs. 97/-per day for Ancillary Labour, Rs. 126/- per day for Sardar and Rs. 119/- per day for Mandal and submitted that the average monthly wages calculated on the basis of such daily wages would be more than Rs. 1,600/ -. Finally, Mr. Nayak submitted that the Third Schedule of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would show that "wages, including the period and mode of payment" is one of the matters within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal and therefore the remedy of the petitioner is to raise an industrial dispute on this matter for reference to the Industrial Tribunal and the high Court under Article 226 of the constitution should not decide the dispute regarding the mode of payment of wages to the departmental and DPS workers of the Food corporation of India. ( 7 ) MR. S. K. Dash, learned counsel for the intervenors in W. P. (C) No. 2928 of 2004, submitted that it is a choice of the individual worker to take his wage either by cheque or cash and the 29 workers (intervenors) have opted to take payment of their wages by cheque instead of cash. In support of this contention, he referred to the Proviso to Section 6 of the payment of Wages Act, 1936 which provides that the employer may, after obtaining the written authorisation of the employed person pay him the wages either by cheque or by crediting the wages in his bank account. Mr. Dash further submitted that under Section 14 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 the inspector appointed under the said Section may make such examination and inquiry as he thinks fit in order to ascertain whether the provisions of the said Act or the Rules made thereunder are being observed and since this alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not issue any direction to the Food Corporation of india to pay wages in cash in accordance with section 6 of the said Act. ( 8 ) THE question which arises for decision in these two writ petitions is whether any duty is conferred on the Food Corporation of India under law to pay wages to its departmental and dps workers in cash only. ( 8 ) THE question which arises for decision in these two writ petitions is whether any duty is conferred on the Food Corporation of India under law to pay wages to its departmental and dps workers in cash only. The petitioner has relied on the provisions of Section 6 of the payment of Wages Act, 1936, Section 11 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Section 2 (22)of the Employees' State Insurance Act. 1948, section 2 (21) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, Section 2 (s) of the Payment of Gratuity act, 1972 and Article 43 of the Constitution to show that Food Corporation of India are under a duty to pay the wages in cash to its departmental and DPS workers. ( 9 ) SUB-SECTION (6) of Section 1 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 are quoted herein below: " 1. Short title, extent, commencement and application- (1) to (5) xx xx xx (6) 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. 6. Wages to be paid in current coin or currency notes.- All wages shall be paid in current coin or currency notes or in both. Provided that the employer may, after obtaining the written authorisation of the employed person pay him the wages either by cheque or by crediting the wages in his bank account. " sub-section (6) of Section 1 of the Payment of wages Act. 1936 makes it clear that the said act applies to wages which average sixteen hundred rupees a month or more. Section 6 provides that all wages shall be paid in current coin or currency notes or in both but the proviso to Section 6 stipulates that the employer may, after obtaining written authorisation of the employee may pay him his wages either by cheque or by crediting the wages in his bank account. Section 6 provides that all wages shall be paid in current coin or currency notes or in both but the proviso to Section 6 stipulates that the employer may, after obtaining written authorisation of the employee may pay him his wages either by cheque or by crediting the wages in his bank account. Where therefore the average of the monthly \vages of a departmental or DPS worker of the food Corporation of India is less than sixteen hundred rupees a month, the Food Corporation of India is under a duty to pay such wages in current coin or currency notes unless the employee who is to receive such wages gives a written authorisation that such wages be paid by cheque or by crediting the same in his bank account. There is no duty cast under the Payment of wages Act, 1936 to pay wages averaging rupees sixteen hundred or more a month to any employee by cash. ( 10 ) SECTION 11 of the Minimum Wages act, 1948 is extracted herein below:"11. Wages in kind.- (1) Minimum wages payable under this Act shall be paid in cash. (2) Where it has been the custom to pay wages wholly or partly in kind, the appropriate Government being of the opinion that it is necessary in the i circumstances of the case may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorize the payment of minimum wages either wholly or partly in kind. (3) If the appropriate Government is of the opinion that provision should be made for the supply of essential commodities at concession rates, the appropriate government may, by notification in the official Gazette, authorize the provision of such supplies at concession rates. (4) The cash value of wages in kind and of concession in respect of supplies of essential commodities at concession rates authorised under sub-sections (2) and (3) shall be estimated in the prescribed manner. "sub-section (1) of Section 11 extracted above provides that minimum wages payable under the said Act shall be paid in cash. Sub-section (2) of Section 11, however, provides that where it has been the custom to pay wages wholly or partly in kind, the appropriate Government being of the opinion that it is necessary in the circumstances of the case may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise the payment of minimum wages either wholly or partly in kind. Sub-section (2) of Section 11, however, provides that where it has been the custom to pay wages wholly or partly in kind, the appropriate Government being of the opinion that it is necessary in the circumstances of the case may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise the payment of minimum wages either wholly or partly in kind. It is not the case of the Food Corporation of India that any notification has been issued by the appropriate Government under sub-section (2) of Section 11 authorising payment of minimum wages either wholly or partly in kind. Thus, the Food Corporation of India is under a statutory duty under Section 11 to pay minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 in cash and not in kind. But this provision in sub-section (1) of Section 11 has been made for the benefit of the employee to whom minimum wage is to be paid. Where therefore the employee authorises the employer to make payment of minimum wages to him by cheque and not by cash, the employer can pay the same in cheque instead of cash as provided in the proviso to Section 6 of the Payment of Wages act, 1936. This is the only way Section 11 (1)of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the proviso to Section 6 of the Payment of Wages act, 1936 can be harmoniously interpreted. ( 11 ) SECTION 2 (22) of the Employees' State insurance Act, 1948, Section 2 (21) of the payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and Section 2 (s)of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 only define the word "wages" for the purpose of the aforesaid case and do not cast any duty on the employer to pay wages to the employee in cash or in current coin or currency notes. ( 12 ) ARTICLE 43 of the Constitution provides that the State shall endeavour to secure by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, "a living wage". ( 12 ) ARTICLE 43 of the Constitution provides that the State shall endeavour to secure by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, "a living wage". In express Newspaper (Private) Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others (supra), the supreme Court after discussing at length the concepts of "living wage" prevalent in various parts of the world observed that there is a general agreement that the "living wage" should enable the male earner to provide for himself and his family not merely the bare essentials of food, clothing and shelter but a measure of frugal comfort including education for the children, protection against ill- health, requirements of essential social needs, and a measure of insurance against the more important misfortunes including old age. In the standard Vacuum Refining Co. of India v. Its workmen and another (supra), the Supreme court further held that a "living wage" is something far greater than the figures of a wage schedule and it is at the same time a condemnation of unmerited and unnecessary poverty and a demand for some measure of justice. After quoting Philip Snowdenon the concept of "the Living Wage", the Supreme court further held in the said case that the concept of "living wage" is not a static but an expanding concept and the number of its constituents and their respective contents are bound to expand and widen with the development and growth of national economy. In Workmen represented by Secretary v. Management of Reptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. and another (supra), the Supreme Court made a distinction between basic "minimum wage" which provides bare subsistence and is at poverty-line level, "fair wage" which is a little above the minimum wage and the "living wage" which comes at a comfort level. Neither in Article 43 of the Constitution nor in the three decisions cited by Mr. Sanjeet Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, there is anything to suggest that the employer is under a duty to pay such living wage only in cash, or in current coin or currency notes and not in cheque. Neither in Article 43 of the Constitution nor in the three decisions cited by Mr. Sanjeet Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, there is anything to suggest that the employer is under a duty to pay such living wage only in cash, or in current coin or currency notes and not in cheque. ( 13 ) THE aforesaid discussion would show that under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages act, 1936 and Section 11 of the Minimum wages Act, 1948, the Food Corporation of india is under a legal duty to pay wages averaging less than rupees sixteen hundred a month and the minimum wage in cash but is not under any statutory duty to pay such wages of rupees sixteen hundred or more a month or more than the minimum wage in cash. Hence, no mandamus can be issued by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to the food Corporation of India to pay such wages to its departmental or DPS workers, where such wages average rupees sixteen hundred a month or more or exceed minimum wages. ( 14 ) THIS is not to say that the petitioner has no other remedy against the impugned communication dated February 5, 2004 of the regional Office of the Food Corporation of india of Orissa Region to the District Managers of the Food Corporation of India in the Orissa region directing payment of wages averaging rupees sixteen hundred or more and exceeding the minimum wages in cheque. Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines "industrial dispute" as any dispute or difference between the employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person and will include a dispute between the petitioner and the Food Corporation of India as to the mode of payment of wages. Section 7-A read with Item 1 of the Third Schedule of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would show that "wages including the period and mode of payment" falls within the jurisdiction of the industrial Tribunals. Section 7-A read with Item 1 of the Third Schedule of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would show that "wages including the period and mode of payment" falls within the jurisdiction of the industrial Tribunals. Hence, the petitioner can always raise an industrial dispute making a demand that wages averaging sixteen hundred rupees or more a month or exceeding the minimum wage also have to be paid to the departmental and DPS workers of the Food corporation of India in cash and not by cheque. ( 15 ) IN fact, it is not the High Court which can decide such disputes between the employer and the workmen as settlement of such disputes involves inquiry into various aspects including questions of fact and the more appropriate mode of settlement of such disputes is industrial adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal. In R. B, diwan Badri Dass and others v. Industrial tribunal, Punjab. Patiala and others 1962 (5)flr 354 (SC), P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. relying on the observations in the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Bank ltd. Delhi v. Employees of the Bharat Bank ltd. , Delhi AIR 1950 SC 188 :1950-LLJ-921 observed:"it is, however, necessary to add that the general question about the employer's right to manage his own affairs in the best way he chooses cannot be answered in the abstract without reference to the facts and circumstances in regard, to which the. question is raised. If a general question is posed and an answer must be given to it, the answer would be both yes and no. The right would be recognised and industrial adjudication would not be permitted or would be reluctant to trespass on that right or on the field of management functions unless compelled by over-riding considerations of social justice. The right would not be recognised and would be controlled if social justice and industrial peace require such regulation. That is why we think industrial adjudication always attempts not to answer questions in the abstract in order to evolve any general or inflexible principles. The best course to adopt in dealing with industrial disputes is to consider the facts of the case, the nature of the demand made by employees, the nature of the defence raised by the employer and decide the dispute without unduly enlarging the scope of the enquiry. The best course to adopt in dealing with industrial disputes is to consider the facts of the case, the nature of the demand made by employees, the nature of the defence raised by the employer and decide the dispute without unduly enlarging the scope of the enquiry. If in the decision of the dispute, some principles have to be followed or evolved, that must be done : but care must be taken not to evolve larger principles which would tend to pre-judge issues not directly raised in the case before the Industrial Tribunal. That is why we think we would not be justified in giving any general answer to the broad contention raised by the learned solicitor-General before us in the present appeal. "relying on the aforesaid observations of gajendragadkar, J. in R. B. Diwan Badri dass and others v. Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, patiala and others (supra), a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court speaking through syed SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J. in Steel authority of India Ltd. and others v. National union Water Front Workers and others AIR 2001 SC 3527 : 2001 (7) SCC 1 ; 2001-II-LLJ-1087, in the said judgment has observed at p. 1132 of LLJ:"120. We have used the expression "industrial adjudication" by design as determination of the questions aforementioned requires inquiry into disputed question of facts which cannot conveniently be made by High Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, in such cases the appropriate authority to go into those issues will be Industrial Tribunal/court whose determination will be amenable to judicial review. " ( 16 ) SINCE we have taken a view that the remedy of the petitioner against the impugned communication dated February 5, 2004 is to raise an industrial dispute to the effect that wages averaging sixteen hundred rupees or more a month or exceeding the minimum wage should be paid by cash and not by cheque, we cannot at this stage consider the contention raised by Mr. Mohanty that the view taken by the authorities in the impugned communication that such wages should be paid by cheque is wholly irrational or unreasonable so as to call for a judicial review by this Court. Mohanty that the view taken by the authorities in the impugned communication that such wages should be paid by cheque is wholly irrational or unreasonable so as to call for a judicial review by this Court. As has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Steel authority of India Ltd. and others v. National union Water Front Workers and others (supra), it is only after the dispute is decided by the Industrial Tribunal that the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution can examine the decision of the tribunal by way of judicial review. ( 17 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we issue a mandamus on the Food Corporation of India to pay to its departmental and DPS workers wages averaging less than sixteen hundred rupees a month and the minimum wage in cash except where such worker gives a written authorisation to pay him in cheque or to credit the wages in his bank account, but we are not inclined to issue any mandamus to the said corporation to pay wages averaging sixteen hundred rupees or more a month or exceeding the minimum wage in cash and instead, we leave it open to the petitioner to raise an industrial dispute that such wages of sixteen hundred rupees or more a month or exceeding the minimum wage should also be paid in cash and not by cheque. ( 18 ) THE writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. Considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, the parties shall bear their own costs.