Judgment :- Siri Jagan, J. The workman involved in an application under the payment of Minimum Wages Act, has filed this appeal aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single judge in O.P.No.7000/1998, by which the order passed by the authority under the minimum wages act, 1948 was set aside by the learned single judge, holding that the Padappu Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangham Ltd. In which the appellant was working as a milk tester is not an industry coming within any of the industries enumerated in the schedule to the minimum wages act thereby excluding the application of the provisions of the said act to the said establishment. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows: 2. The 1st respondent is a co-operative society engaged in the business of collection of milk from small farmers and selling the same to the public. Complaining about non-payment of minimum wages application to the employees in daily farms, the appellant filed an application before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent upheld the contention of the appellant and directed payment of minimum wages as per S.R.O.No.804/92, by which the Government of Kerala prescribed the minimum wages for employees of dairy farming. The said order was challenged by the 1st respondent society before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge allowed the original petition holding that the 1st respondent society is not a scheduled employment and therefore, the notification mentioned above is not applicable to the employees of the said society. The workman is challenging the said judgment in this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the 1st respondent as also the learned Government pleader. 4. The contention of the appellant is that collection of milk from farmers, testing the same and selling the same to the public form part of the employment in daily farming and therefore, the business being conducted by the 1st respondent society squarely comes within the ambit of the S.R.O. in question is applicable to the workers of the 1st respondent society. 5. On the other hand, the counsel for the 1st respondent co-operative society would content that collection of milk from small farmers and selling the same to the public is not an employment scheduled under the minimum wages act and therefore, the S.R.O. in question is not applicable to the workers of the 1st respondent society. 5. On the other hand, the counsel for the 1st respondent co-operative society would content that collection of milk from small farmers and selling the same to the public is not an employment scheduled under the minimum wages act and therefore, the S.R.O. in question is not applicable to the workers of the 1st respondent society. 6. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties in detail. Fixation of minimum wages is as per section 3 of the minimum wages act, 1948 the relevant portion of which reads as under: “3. Fixing of minimum rates of wages [(1) The appropriate government shall, in the manner hereinafter provided,- [(a) fix the minimum rates of wages payable to employees employed in an employment specified in part I or Part II of the Schedule and in an employment added to either party by notification under section 27: The Act also defines “Scheduled Employment” under section 2 (iv) (g) which reads thus: 2. Interpretation xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (g) “scheduled employment” means an employment specified in the Schedule or any process or branch of work forming part of such employment” Of course part I of the schedule does not contain any entry relating to dairy or dairy farming, but part II of the schedule reads as under: (1) Employment in agriculture, that is to say in any form of farming, including the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairy farming, the production, cultivation, growing and harvesting of any agricultural or horticultural commodity, the raising of live-stock bees or poultry and any practice performed by a framer or on a farm as incidental to or in conjunction with farm operation (including any forestry or timbering operations and the preparation of market and delivery of storage or to market or to carriage for transportation to market of farm produce).” 7. It contains an entry “daily farming”. Dairy farming is the process by which milk is produced. Selling of milk so produced is essentially a part of the process of dairy farming itself because milk so produced has necessarily to be sold and the object of production of milk in large quantities is for sale. Therefore, the same can be seen only as a necessary part of the employment of daily farming itself. Selling of milk so produced is essentially a part of the process of dairy farming itself because milk so produced has necessarily to be sold and the object of production of milk in large quantities is for sale. Therefore, the same can be seen only as a necessary part of the employment of daily farming itself. Further, interpretation of the term “dairy farming” has to be made in the context that the Act is a beneficial legislation for fixing minimum rates of wages of workers in employments. Going by the established rules of interpretations of beneficial legislations the provisions of the Act have to be interpreted liberally in favour of the workmen for whose benefit the act is intended. Viewed in that angle we have no hesitation to hold that the term “dairy farming” would include sale of milk which is the culmination of the process of production of milk. The contention of the respondents that the sale of milk does not form part of the process of production of milk which alone would constitute dairy farming does not appeal to us. Milk produced has necessarily to be sold to person who consume the same. Without selling of the milk produced the industry of dairy farming would become without purpose. Therefore, collection and sale of milk would form part and parcel of the process of dairy farming itself. 8. Further it should be noted that the Act itself gives a specific definition for “scheduled employment” to mean an employment specified in the schedule or any process or branch of work forming part of such employment (emphasis supplied). Therefore, the entry in the schedule read with the definition of ‘scheduled employment” gives absolutely no room for doubt that the collection, testing and sale of milk, in which the 1st respondent society is engaged in, would necessarily form a process or branch of the work forming part of the employment of dairy farming. In that view, the employment under the 1st respondent society definitely forms employment in “daily farming” for which minimum wages are notified by SRO No.804/1992. Of course the counsel for the society would bring to our notice a latter issued by the Asst. Labour Officer, Kasargod to the effect that milk marketing co-operative societies would not come within the purview of minimum wages Act. Of course the counsel for the society would bring to our notice a latter issued by the Asst. Labour Officer, Kasargod to the effect that milk marketing co-operative societies would not come within the purview of minimum wages Act. That can only be an opinion which cannot be held to be the correct interpretation of the provisions of the law involved. 9. Therefore, the judgment of the learned single judge suffers from infirmity and deserves to be set aside. We do so and restore Ext.P1 order of the 2nd respondent Labour commissioner directing payment of minimum wages to the appellant/workman. The amounts as directed in Ext.P1 order shall be paid to the appellant within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ appeal is allowed as above, but without any order as costs.