Judgment : These petitions are heard together, since they have challenged the very same award passed by the authority under The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for brevity) and Labour Conciliation Officer. 2. Heard the learned Counsel Shri.K. Srinivas, STM Associates, for the petitioner in WP 20560/2007 and for respondent No.1 in WP 15266/2006 and the learned Senior Advocate Shri.S.Vijayashankar for the Counsel for respondent no.1 in W.P.No.20560/2007 and the learned Senior Advocate Shri. S.N. Murthy for the counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.15266/2006 and respondent no.2 in W.P.No.20560/2007. 3. The petitioner in W.P.No.20560/07 is a Labour Union, which seeks to espouse the cause of twenty six workmen, who claim that their employer is the Bangalore Turf Club Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘BTC’ for brevity). They had approached the competent authority under the Act, seeking payment of minimum wages. Their claim was allowed, but however, the authority having held that the Karnataka Trainers’ Association, was in fact, liable to pay the said minimum wages, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. It is the petitioner’s contention that BTC is an association of members formed with an object of promoting horse racing and has engaged over 1,800 workmen. It facilitates owners of race hoses to stable them at the Club Premises and are trained by trainers who have formed an association amongst themselves. The workmen whose cause is espoused by the petitioner are known as ‘Syces’, who are under the supervision of the trainers. It is a fact that the said workmen are paid out of monies which are contributed by the owners towards their wages to the BTC, which, in turn, channels the same through the trainers to be paid to the workmen. This is the system that is currently followed. The claim having been filed to contend that though the above system of payment of wages was adopted by BTC for its convenience and in order to distance itself as a principal employer of the said workmen to avoid legal obligations, the fact remained that the current practice had been evolved over a period of time and for all purposes, BTC continued to be the principal employer. This is evident from the circumstance that the workmen are not appointed either by the owners of the race horses nor the trainers association. This is evident from the circumstance that the workmen are not appointed either by the owners of the race horses nor the trainers association. Both the owners of race horses and the trainers are not permanently stationed at BTC. The race horses are taken to other cities for racing, along with or without the trainers associated with particular horses. Therefore, the presumption would be that, it is as a matter of convenience that, payment of wages to the workmen made in the manner as above, who are permanently stationed at BTC, is only in order to avoid the legal obligation of BTC vis-à-vis its workmen. 5. The competent authority under the Act had framed the following issues: i) Whether the petitioner proves that the provisions of the Act apply to the respondents and whether the respondents are liable to pay minimum wages? ii) Whether the petitioner proves that there are justifiable reasons for filing the petition after a delay of 8 years? iii) Whether the petitioner proves that the respondents have been paying them less than the minimum wages? iv) Of the two respondents, which of the respondent is liable to pay the minimum wages to the workers herein? v) What reliefs are the workers entitled to under Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act? vi) What orders?” 6. Evidence had been tendered on behalf of the workmen and on consideration of the pleadings and evidence on behalf of the respondents, though the authority in its order had opined that the BTC appeared to be the principal employer, has without any other finding as regards the nexus of employer and employee as between the trainers association and the workmen, has opined that it is the trainers association which is liable to pay the wages to the workmen. It is this, which is under challenge. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that BTC is the principal employer. As the trainers and their association have come into being only from the year 1998, whereas, the workmen were already discharging their duties under BTC. It is this, which is under challenge. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that BTC is the principal employer. As the trainers and their association have come into being only from the year 1998, whereas, the workmen were already discharging their duties under BTC. Therefore, if the principal employer is held to be the Trainers’ Association, the workmen stand a risk of not being enabled to claim their legitimate dues against BTC and the trainers association being a fluid and transitory body which changes in its composition and without there being any employer and employee relationship vis-à-vis the said association and the workmen it results in a serious anomaly and jeopardizes the security of employment of the workers. It is further pointed out that the trainers are themselves licenced by the BTC, who in turn, are employed by the owners of race horses, who pay them for their services, and in the absence of any employer and employee and relationship either between the workmen, trainers and the race horse owners, it cannot be said that the workmen who would then be rank outsiders, have been allowed to work on the premises of BTC even before the Trainers Association has come into existence. It is further contended that the BTC issues licences to Trainers, Jockeys and Jamdars. These licences can be withdrawn or suspended at any time. The entry into the premises of the Club is strictly controlled. The entire premises is under the control of BTC. The main object of BTC is to facilitate horse racing. The mere fact that the source of payment of wages to the workmen is from the payments made by the race horse owners does not have the effect of extinguishing the relationship of employer and employee as between BTC and the said workmen. 8. The second respondent has contested the petition and has filed statement of objections: In order to further substantiate the statement of objections, the affidavit dated 1.9.2009 has also been filed. It is contended that the BTC was initially incorporated on 1.3.1962 under the Companies Act, 1956, under the name and style of ‘Bangalore Race Club Limited’ on 20.11.1967. Earlier it was functioning as an unincorporated Club. BTC is one of the five recognised Turf Authorities in the country. It is contended that the BTC was initially incorporated on 1.3.1962 under the Companies Act, 1956, under the name and style of ‘Bangalore Race Club Limited’ on 20.11.1967. Earlier it was functioning as an unincorporated Club. BTC is one of the five recognised Turf Authorities in the country. These Turf authorities have framed Rules of Racing, which are almost identical and the activity of the Club is carried out, in terms of the Rules of Racing. To carry on these activities of conducting races, the BTC has employed its own employees. It is stated that the employee strength as on date is about 180 in various categories. The service conditions of the said employees are governed by the service Rules and Settlements signed between the management and the recognized unions from time to time. BTC has signed several Memoranda of Settlements with the said Unions. The BTC Staff Association is a recognized Trade Union of the BTC. The settlements entered into from time are as follows:- Sl.No. Date of signing the Settlement Period of Settlement 1. 10.1.1974 10.1.1974 to 9.1.1977 2. 1.1.1977 1.1.1977 to 31.3.1979 3. 5.8.1987 1.4.1987 to 31.3.1990 4. 21.10.1990 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1993 5. 1.9.1993 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1996 6. 14.6.1998 1.4.1996 to 31.3.1999 7. 19.4.2002 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2004 8. 18.2.2005 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2006 9. 17.9.2006 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2009 10. 25.2.2008 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2012 The BTC is carrying on its activity on land leased by the Government of Karnataka. The lease amount is Rs.24,000,000/- per annum apart from a licence fee of Rs.60,000/- per betting day. Each betting day is licensed by the Government. The horses which are fielded by the horse owners do not belong to the BTC. The horse owners are outsiders. Under the Rules of Racing, a owner is defined as follows:- “ “Owner” means the legal and not the equitable owner of a horse and approved by the Stewards of the Club and permitted by them to own horses and race them under the Rules of Racing and includes part owners. Where a horse is leased, the word owner means the lessee or a part-lessee but not lessor and the lessor of a horse shall be deemed to have no racing interest in the horse and the interest of the Lessor in such horse shall be subject to terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement between the Lessor and the Lessee. Where a horse is leased, the word owner means the lessee or a part-lessee but not lessor and the lessor of a horse shall be deemed to have no racing interest in the horse and the interest of the Lessor in such horse shall be subject to terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement between the Lessor and the Lessee. In the case of a horse owned by a Limited Company or syndicate, the word “Owner” means the company or the syndicate, as the case may be.” Each horse owner is required to be registered with the BTC and is required to name the horses of which he is the owner. This is a pre-condition for the horses to participate in the racing. The horse owner engages a trainer and the trainer is the authorized agent of the owner and transacts his accounts in terms of receiving and paying monies from a racing account. The horse owner may engage more than one trainer. The trainer is issued a professional licence by the BTC. He is an independent professional who is authorized to impart training to the horses on the premises of the BTC. The trainer engages workmen in the following categories:- (a) Jamadars (b) Syces (c) Falthus/Helpers (d) Riding boys. There is no cap on the number of labourers that can be employed to tend a race horse. The trainer determines the strength of the working force. A horse owner pays the trainer towards maintenance of the horses. Out of the amounts received from the horse owner, the trainer pays wages to the labourers engaged by him. The privity of contract lies between the horse owners and the trainers. There is no privity of contract between the BTC and the trainers. The relationship of BTC with the trainer is that of licensor and licensee. There is no compulsion on the owner to field a horse at any particular race. The BTC does not benefit by any particular horse winning the race. It only receives commission on the betting amount, which is an average of 9% as on date. Out of which amount, 4% is paid to the State Government by way of taxes. Apart from this, funds are generated through gate entry fee, book makers stall fee, inter-venue betting operations, royalty from other Race Clubs and so on. It only receives commission on the betting amount, which is an average of 9% as on date. Out of which amount, 4% is paid to the State Government by way of taxes. Apart from this, funds are generated through gate entry fee, book makers stall fee, inter-venue betting operations, royalty from other Race Clubs and so on. It is out of these sources that the BTC meets the expenditure towards its administrative expenses, maintenance, other expenditure on races and betting, payment of royalty to Racing Clubs, licence fee to be paid to the Government, subsidy to owners and trainers and so on. The net income per annum therefore is well below Rs.10,00,000/- per year. Over the years, the net income of the club is as under:- Sl.No. Year Net Income Rs.(in lakhs) 1. 2004-05 8.62 2. 2005-06 9.44 3. 2006-07 14.83 4. 2007-08 34.91 5. 2008-09 19.61 The Managing Committee of the Club comprises of 14 members including four nominees of the State Government and has a total membership of 350. No dividend is declared or is payable to the members of the Club. The surplus amount will not be disbursed to the individual members. The net surplus is utilised for maintaining and improving the infrastructure. The major portion of the funds generated goes to the horse owners in the form of stakes money, subsidy to owners and trainers and tax, licence fee, and lease rent to the Government. The BTC issues monthly statements of account to the owners and the wages paid by the trainers to the workers is reflected in the accounts maintained by the trainers. The trainer who pays wages of the workmen claims basic maintenance cost from the accounts of the owner on the basis of each horse at Rs.10,750/- and not on the basis of the employees engaged by him. It is stated that there are 40 trainers operating as “A” Licensed Trainers who are Bangalore based. They are independent professionalists carrying on their avocation in the premises of the Club. They have their own association known as “A” licensed Trainers Association which determines the service conditions of the Syces and others engaged by the trainers. The workmen so engaged are represented by separate Trade Unions. It is, at present, the petitioner who represents the cause of the workers engaged by the trainers. They have their own association known as “A” licensed Trainers Association which determines the service conditions of the Syces and others engaged by the trainers. The workmen so engaged are represented by separate Trade Unions. It is, at present, the petitioner who represents the cause of the workers engaged by the trainers. There are several long term settlements pertaining to wage and other service conditions signed between the Karnataka Trainers Association and the representatives of the workmen engaged by the trainers. The BTC has produced only the available settlements from 1987 onwards in these proceedings. The present Memorandum of Understanding signed between the association and the petitioner was in force till 31.12.2009. It is stated that the stable workers have been engaged by the trainers from inception and it is the trainers who allot the work to their workers and control and supervision is exercised by the trainers. The BTC has, at no point of time, engaged stable workers. All the records pertaining to the engagement of stable workers remain with the trainers. Therefore, it is emphasized that the BTC has, at no point of time, had any role in engaging the stable workers or of supervising their work. Incidentally, it is stated that a Stud Farm Known as Kunigal Stud Farm is the property of the State Government. The Government was running the Stud Farm to breed horses through the Department of Animal Husbandry. The Farm was leased to BTC by the Government of Mysore in the year 1968 for better management and increasing the production of horses and more efficient working of the farm. The BTC took over the Stud Farm and the foals were sold to local owners and outsiders by the annual auction sales. However, there is no such auction sale conducted by the Club since the Stud Farm is no longer run by the Club. The lease was for a term of five years though it was renewed for a further period of 20 years in the year 1972 and the workmen who were employed at the Stud Farm were taken over by BTC, which included veterinarians, office staff, labourers and syces, totally numbering 97. Sl.No. Category Total Strength 1. Staff 19 2. Contingency Paid Staff (Syce) 14 3. Temporary Staff drawn from other (Syce) 03 4. Main Farm Labourers 23 5. Berur Kavalgar 02 6. Women Labourers 11 7. Ramdan Garden Labourers 14 8. Sl.No. Category Total Strength 1. Staff 19 2. Contingency Paid Staff (Syce) 14 3. Temporary Staff drawn from other (Syce) 03 4. Main Farm Labourers 23 5. Berur Kavalgar 02 6. Women Labourers 11 7. Ramdan Garden Labourers 14 8. Begur Garden Head Cooly Labourers 11 Grand Total 97 The BTC incurred heavy loss in maintaining the Farm and therefore, the lease stood terminated and it has been leased now by the Government to M/s United Racing and Blood-stock Breeders Private Limited from the year 1992. On termination of the lease, a tripartite agreement was signed between the present lease holder of the farm, BTC and the workmen employed at the farm, represented by a union wherein it was stipulated that the dues of whatsoever nature due to the workmen stood finally settled. Thereafter, the present lease-holder issued appointment letters to the workmen. Incidentally, it is further stated that there is Bangalore Amateur Riders Institute, which was located elsewhere, but is now housed in the Club premises. It trains people in horse riding, apart from providing the facility to the NCC Cadets and other school and college students. The horses in the stables for this purpose and the Institute employs 10 persons including 4 syces and 5 helpers. It is reiterated therefore, the petitioner-Union has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Trainers Association as regards reduction of wages payable to them and a copy of that settlement has already been filed along with the Statement of Objections which was current in 31.10.2009. The claim before the competent authorities was a claim for minimum wages and it is from 1.12.1996 till 31.3.2006. The amount claimed was in a sum of Rs.11,66,234/-and ten times the compensation of the difference. This was made as against BTC as well as one Padmanabhan – first respondent. The claim was contested on several grounds. It was the contention of the BTC that there was no employer employee relationship between the Club and the workmen engaged by the Trainers Association. They were neither engaged directly or indirectly by the BTC. Therefore, they were not the employees of BTC within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Minimum Wages Act. It was the contention of the BTC that there was no employer employee relationship between the Club and the workmen engaged by the Trainers Association. They were neither engaged directly or indirectly by the BTC. Therefore, they were not the employees of BTC within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Minimum Wages Act. Evidence was tendered before the authority and one workman who had tendered evidence on behalf of the petitioner had admitted the existence of the union and also admitted the Memorandum of Wages Settlement between the Association and the Trade Union. There was a further admission of receipt of wages in terms of the settlements. There was no dispute that the Trainers Association was supervising the work of the workmen and the wages were paid directly by the Trainers Association. The evidence on behalf of the Trainers Association was to the effect that the wages are paid in terms of settlements arrived at from time to time and as there was no separate Minimum Wage Notification for a horse trainer in the Schedule of establishments under the Minimum Wages Act. The difference claimed was imaginary and concocted. Material was produced to establish that the wages had, in fact, been paid from time to time, and that several of the workmen were not at all employed during the relevant period for which the claim was being made. The competent authority by its order dated 23.9.2006, has directed the first respondent to pay the difference of minimum wage to the extent of Rs.7,85,545.10 plus ten times of the difference as compensation while holding that the BTC was not liable to pay any amount since there was no employer-employee relationship. It is pointed out that the first respondent was not aggrieved by the second portion of the order of the authority insofar as holding that there is no employer-employee relationship between the BTC and the workmen engaged by the association was concerned. It is pointed out that the first respondent was not aggrieved by the second portion of the order of the authority insofar as holding that there is no employer-employee relationship between the BTC and the workmen engaged by the association was concerned. However, a writ petition has been filed by the said respondent in WP 15266/2006 challenging the determination of the minimum wage difference and the compensation on the following grounds: That no Notification was issued covering the Trainers activity under the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act and that there is an inordinate delay of nine years in approaching the authority and the claim is imaginary since the workmen on whose behalf the claim has been made had not worked for the relevant period. It is significant that the Trainers Association has not questioned the finding that there was no relationship of employer-employee, as between the BTC and the workmen and the BTC has not been made a party to that writ petition. It is after 18 months from the date of filing of the above writ petition by the Trainers Association, that the petitioner-Union has filed the present petitions and the contentions raised in the petition were never urged before the authority and it is for the first time that such contentions are raised and therefore, the very petition would not be maintainable in the absence of any finding that there was relationship of employer-employee. Further, the relationship of BTC vis-à-vis the Trainers Association is that of licensor and licensee. It cannot even be said that the BTC is the principal employer of the workmen and in the absence of any Notification covering trainers activity in the Schedule of employment stipulated under the Minimum Wages Act and if the Trainers Association cannot be made liable by virtue of that the principal employer let alone a licensor. It is contended that an employer is one who employs either directly or through another person in any scheduled employment. This is the determining factor,. If there is no such engagement, then such a person would not be in a position to claim as an employee. It is declared by the BTC that it has not employed any of the syces in its establishment. This is the determining factor,. If there is no such engagement, then such a person would not be in a position to claim as an employee. It is declared by the BTC that it has not employed any of the syces in its establishment. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence on record, to disclose that the Trainers Association and the Workers Union had no dispute as to the relationship and the settlement of wags and other working conditions from time to time would be prima facie evidence of such relationship. In view f the admitted state of affairs by the witnesses on behalf of the Union, the issue is no longer open for debate. Further, insofar as the claim that the minimum wages was not paid is factually incorrect as is evident from a comparative statement that has been filed by the BTC to demonstrate that the wages agreed to be paid by the Trainers Association is far in excess of the minimum wages prescribed and therefore, on merits, the petition would not survive for consideration and would have to be rejected outright. It is further pointed out that the BTC has not engaged the stable workers is also established by reference to several proceedings where this question had arisen and it has been consistently held that thee is no relationship of employer and employee as between the stable workers such as the workmen in question and the BTC. As for instance, the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.ATA/301(6)/2001 by order dated 8.9.2005 has held that the stable workers engaged by the ;horse owners through the trainers were not the employees of the Turf Club. A statement made on behalf of a Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Trainers Association in a writ petition before this court, which was disposed of by an order dated 28.2.2007, preferred by the Karnataka Trainers Association, that the workmen are engaged by the Trainers is recorded, So also, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore, in an order dated 18.3.2008 has held that the Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi having already held that the stable workers were not the employees of BTC, the question could not be re-opened. It is canvassed that from the evidence on record, the following important test for the determination as to whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the BTC and the workers would have to be applied:- (a) The concept of employment viz., (i) employer (ii) employee and (iii) contract of employment The employer is one who engages the services of other person. The employee is one works for another for hire The employment is the contract of service between the employer and the employee whereunder the employee agrees to serve the employer subject to his control and supervision. (b) Supervision and control test (c) The power to select (d) The power to dismiss The concept of employment involvers the employer-employee and contract of employment. Employer is one who engages the service of another person. The employee is one who works for another for hire. The employment is the contract of service between the employer and employee whereunder the employee agrees to serve the employer subject to his control and supervision. This would entail supervision and control by the employer, the power to select and the power to dismiss. From the evidence on record, the Trainers Association represented by the first respondent fulfills all the above tests and in fact, there is no dispute about the relationship throughout. Therefore, only on the circumstance that BTC provides certain infrastructural facilities and imposes regulatory measures in respect of racing activity is not a decisive factor to determine the employer-employee relationship. The second respondent is a licensor possessed every right to enforce discipline, guidelines on its premises. This is a system that is prevalent in all the Turf Clubs in the country and there is enough authority to hold that even if there is certain amount of supervision and control and even payment of wages in certain exigencies may not create employer-employee relationship. In the instant case, when there is neither any element of supervision or control nor payment of wages, it cannot be that such a privity of contract is created. 9. It is contended that, the first respondent has filed the second of the above petitions challenging the order, but it is inexplicable that the workers union has also sought to challenge the order which is in their favour after an unexplained delay. 9. It is contended that, the first respondent has filed the second of the above petitions challenging the order, but it is inexplicable that the workers union has also sought to challenge the order which is in their favour after an unexplained delay. As can be seen from the impugned order, the workers union has been granted the relief claimed, and therefore, it is as an afterthought that the present petition is filed seeking to fasten the liability on BTC. This is further compounded by the circumstance that the first respondent does not question the relationship of employer and employee as between himself and the concerned workmen. Incidentally, there are other proceedings, where this question insofar as the relationship between the workmen and the Trainers Association is concerned, has been affirmed as is apparent from the decision of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated 08.09.2005, which is exhibited as Annexure ‘R5’ and an order of this Court in W.P.No.26596/2005 relating to Provident Fund dated 28.08.2007 at Annexure ‘R6’ to the statement of objections. Therefore, the question of employer and employee as between the workmen and BTC is totally absent and the writ petition as against BTC is wholly misconceived. 10. Incidentally, it is also asserted that insofar as the minimum wages are concerned, by virtue of settlements arrived at from time to time, the workmen engaged by the Trainers Association, such as the workmen represented by the petitioner are paid wages at a rate which is far higher than the wages prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act. In this regard, the comparison of the rates of wages to which the workmen are entitled to and the difference of the wages actually drawn is indicated in tabular form as below: TABLES Period Minimum wage Rates Rs. Ps. Entitlement of wages as per Settlement Rs. Ps. Entitlement of wages over and above Minimum wages Rates(Difference) Rs. Ps. In this regard, the comparison of the rates of wages to which the workmen are entitled to and the difference of the wages actually drawn is indicated in tabular form as below: TABLES Period Minimum wage Rates Rs. Ps. Entitlement of wages as per Settlement Rs. Ps. Entitlement of wages over and above Minimum wages Rates(Difference) Rs. Ps. Date of Settlement 1.12.1996 to 31.3.1997 1,482-00 1,900-00 418-00 2.8.1996 valid from 1.1.1996 till 31.12.1998 1.4.1997 to 31.3.1998 1,604-40 1,900-00 295-60 -do-1.4.1998 to 31.12.1998 1,734-45 1,900-00 165-55 -do-1.3.1999 to 31.3.1999 1,734-45 2,700-00 965-55 13.3.2000 valid from 1.1.99 to 31.12.2001 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2000 1,887-45 2,700-00 81255 -do-1.4.2000 to 31.12.2000 1,979-25 2,700-00 720-65 -do-1.1.2001 to 31.3.2001 2,048-10 2,700-00 651-90 -do-1.4.2001 to 31.3.2000 2,048-10 2,700-00 651-90 -do-1.4.2002 to 31.12.2002 2,109-30 2,700-00 590-70 -do-1.1.2003 to 31.3.2003 2,109-30 3,425-00 1,315-70 27.09.2003 valid from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 2,193-00 3,425-00 1,231-10 -do-1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005 2,395-00 3,425-00 1,030-00 -do-1.4.2005 to 31.12.2005 2,486-80 3,425-00 938-20 -do-1.1.2006 to 31.3.2006 2,486-80 4,335-00 1,848-20 MOU signed between KTA and the President of the petitioner Union (valid from 1.1.2006 to 31.12.2009) 11. The settlements which are referred to above according to BTC have never been questioned, especially when the wages exceed minimum wages. It is therefore contended that the petition be dismissed as not giving rise to any case for consideration against BTC. The Trainer against whom the claim was filed as representing the Trainers Association has preferred the first of these petitions, challenging the very impugned order to contend that the claim was contested on the ground that the nature of work carried out by the petitioner was not a Scheduled employment under the Minimum Wages Act. That the claim filed after a period of nine years of the period for which the difference of wages was claimed as barred by laches, and there was no jurisdiction in the competent authority to condone the delay when there was not even an application seeking condonation of the delay. The petitioner admits the main activity in which he is engaged is in training the race horses stationed at the club stables and to supervise their care and maintenance, on behalf of the horse owners. That the workmen in question are stable workers engaged in grooming the horses, cleaning the stables and exercising the horses. It is contended that State Government has not fixed minimum wages for the nature of work. That the workmen in question are stable workers engaged in grooming the horses, cleaning the stables and exercising the horses. It is contended that State Government has not fixed minimum wages for the nature of work. The reasoning of the competent authority that the workmen being engaged on the premises of BTC would be covered under the Schedule to the Act, as “Clubs” are included in the Scheduled employment, is questioned on the ground that even if the proposition is accepted, a closer examination of the relevant notification under which the minimum wages are prescribed for the several category of workmen employed by clubs do not include the workmen in question. The notification has categorized the following: i) Manager ii) Assistant Manager iii) Supervisor iv) Accountant v) Head Cook vi) Swimming Coach vii) Steward viii) Typist/Clerk ix) Barman x) Telephone Operator xi) Electrician xii) Assistant Cook xiii) Bearer xiv) Marker xv) Watchman xvi) Sweeper/Cleaner xvii) Scavenger xviii) Gardener xix) Picker Whereas the workmen in question are the following: i) Jamadars/Farriers/riding boys ii) Syces iii) Spare boys syces iv) Extract boys/faltus The competent authority has hence exercised jurisdiction where there was none-as it is only in respect of a Scheduled employment that a claim for determination of minimum wages was maintainable. It is contended that over the decades, there was never any claim by the workmen at the various settlements arrived at as to the wages falling below the minimum wage and it is for the first time a highly belted and speculative claim was made, which has been allowed without any reason being assigned for the delay to be overlooked. In the absence of a privity of contract between BTC and the workmen-it was necessary for the workmen to establish that a horse trainer fell under the scheduled employment. The competent authority has inexplicably held that the scheduled employment “Clubs” was applicable, but the petitioner was held sliable to pay the difference in wags and the compensation. It is also contended that the workmen who were engaged in clearing horse dung could not have been held to be skilled workers (See: Para 8 (e)) and minimum wage payable to skilled workers could not have been applied to them. It is asserted that the wages paid were much greater than the minimum wages payable and hence, the claim itself was not maintainable. It is asserted that the wages paid were much greater than the minimum wages payable and hence, the claim itself was not maintainable. The compensation directed to be paid is without basis and wholly unsustainable. The phenomenal amount imposed is unjust and unfair. In the above background, the points that arise for consideration by this court are the following: a) Has the competent authority justified the entertainment of the claim under Section 20 of the Act in respect of a period commencing nine years prior to the date of claim? Even if the delay could be condoned, was the competent authority justified in granting the claim in to and award compensation at 10 times the claim? b) Were the Workmen, in question, within the scope of Scheduled employment under the Act.? c) Has the competent authority addressed the relationship of the parties namely, BTC, the Trainers and the concerned workmen, in the proper perspective? Could the liability be fastened on the trainer, on the footing that the Scheduled employment was under the item “Clubs”, if there was no relationship of employer and employee vis-à-vis, BTC and the workmen, concerned? d) Was the Competent Authority justified in assuming that the workmen were entitled to wages payable to skilled workers employed in a club? Was the minimum wage payable determined in accordance with law and the facts and circumstances? On the question of the claim being highly belted, there can be no dispute that the claim was indeed belated. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act provides that every applicant raising a claim shall present such application within six months from the date on which the minimum wages or other amount became payable. It is further provided that any application may be admitted after the said period of six months if the Authority is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. Given the tenor of the above provision, it is plain that the Legislature has afforded the discretion to the competent authority to consider the facts and circumstances on a case by case basis, either to condone the delay or to reject an application. In the instant case, the Authority has readily accepted the laconic reasons assigned in the application. Given the tenor of the above provision, it is plain that the Legislature has afforded the discretion to the competent authority to consider the facts and circumstances on a case by case basis, either to condone the delay or to reject an application. In the instant case, the Authority has readily accepted the laconic reasons assigned in the application. The workmen were employed in the premises of a prestigious club in the heart of the city and had the assistance of seasoned trade unions, though they may have engaged in humble chores, the reasons assigned could not have been rather naively accepted by the competent authority. In the opinion of this court, given that the claim was made under a labour welfare legislation, condonation of delay ought to be liberal – but then the next aspect to be considered would be, even if the delay in entertaining the application could be justified, whether the claim in respect of the period commencing from 1996 be entertained in the year 2005. In the facts and circumstances, it would, at best, have been reasonable to restrict the consideration of the claim not extending three years prior to the presentation of the claim. This would have been in consonance with the law of limitation which prescribes a period of limitation, for the price of work done by a plaintiff, in civil suit. That law does not distinguish between an ignorant workman or an enlightened one. These workmen on hand were not bonded labourers on a remote quarry, to be enabled to recover monies due to them from a remote point of time. Hence the claim should have been restricted as aforesaid. In so far as the compensation directed to be paid is concerned, it has been granted for the asking by the competent authority. Though the discretion to award such compensation is vested with the authority, it ought to be exercised judiciously and in a reasonable manner. This, in the opinion of this court, would be to award reasonable interest on amounts found to be payable and by way of costs, as compensation. When the amount is paltry, awarding ten times the amount may even be justified for otherwise the time and effort spent in adjudication is fruitless. In the instant case the compensation awarded would ruin even a prosperous employer. When the amount is paltry, awarding ten times the amount may even be justified for otherwise the time and effort spent in adjudication is fruitless. In the instant case the compensation awarded would ruin even a prosperous employer. The same requires to be drastically scaled down, even if it is to be paid. The next question as regards whether the workmen in question could be said to fall within the scope of a scheduled employment under the Act. To address this issue, the definitions of the following expressions may usefully be extracted: “employer” means any person who employs, whether directly or though another person, or whether on behalf of himself or any other person, one or more employees in any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, and include except in Sub-section (3) of Section 26,- (i) in a factory where there is carried on any schedule employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under the Act, any person named under (clause(f) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948)), as manager of the factory. (ii) In any scheduled employment under the control of any Government in India in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, the person or authority appointed by such Government for the supervision and control of employees or where no person or authority is so appointed, the head of the department: (iii) In any scheduled employment under any local authority in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, the person appointed by such authority for the supervision and control of employees or where no person is so appointed, the chief executive officer of the local authority; (iv) In any other case where there is carried on any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, any person responsible to the owner for the supervision and control of the employees or for the payment of wages; xx xx xx “Scheduled Employment” means an employment specified in the schedule, or any process or branch of work forming part of such employment; xx xx xx “employee” means any person who is employed for hire or reward to do any work, skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical, in a scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed; and includes an out-worker to whom any articles or materials are given out by another person to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, finished, repaired, adapted or otherwise processed for sale for the purposes of the trade or business of that other person where the process is to be carried out either in the home of the out-worker or in some other premises not being premises under the control and management of that other person; and also includes an employee declared to be an employee by the appropriate Government; but does not include any member of the Armed Forces of the (Union). It is true that Horse Racing or Horse stables are not Scheduled employment. In the instant case, BTC, the horse owners and the horse trainers are inter-independent for their continued existence in those roles. BTC is a club and Clubs are a category of scheduled employment. The sole activity of BTC is horse racing, hence it is unlike other clubs that are contemplated. It is said to be the only one of its kind in the State. BTC is a club and Clubs are a category of scheduled employment. The sole activity of BTC is horse racing, hence it is unlike other clubs that are contemplated. It is said to be the only one of its kind in the State. There would hence be no other club which engages a jamadar, a syce, a falthus or a riding boy, who are all horse stable hands. Hence the Notification issued by the State Government not including the above workmen among the list of employees who may be usually engaged in any other social or cultural club is not surprising. This is especially so in the light of Sub-section (1A) of Section 3 of the Act which reads as follows: “(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the appropriate Government may refrain from fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled employment in which there are in the whole State less than one thousand employees engaged in such employment, but if at any time (***) the appropriate Government comes to a finding after such inquiry as it may make or cause to be made in this behalf that the number of employees in any scheduled employment in respect of which it has refrained from fixing minimum rates of wages has risen to one thousand or more, it shall fix minimum rates of wages payable to employees in such employment (as soon as may be after such finding.) But from a reading of the above definitions harmoniously, there is no difficulty in holding that the said workmen would be covered under the Scheduled employment. An employer is a person who employs one or more employees, whether directly or through another person, (read-trainer) in any scheduled employment. Scheduled employment means an employment specified in the Schedule, or any process or branch of work forming part of such employment. And an employee is a person who is employed in a scheduled employment and includes an out-worker to whom any articles or materials (read-horses) are given out by another person (read-trainer), to be cleaned, washed, adapted, ornamented (read-fed, washed and exercised) for the purposes of the trade or business (read-activity) of that other person (read-BTC). In other words, it may be said BTC has, for the purposes of its main activity, horse racing. In other words, it may be said BTC has, for the purposes of its main activity, horse racing. It does not own any race horses- it invites race horse owners to bring them to its premises and house them in its stables. The horses need to be trained and therefore, trainers are employed- the horse owner engages them. The horses need to be cared for, the stables need to be maintained. Hence, the stable workers are employed. (There is no material available to establish that the trainer or trainers have appointed the workmen from time to time.) Not a single entity amongst these is dispensable. All this is to facilitate the main activity of BTC. It is ironical that only employees engaged by BTC for its administrative and incidental activity of feeding its members and quenching their thirst, or who potter in the garden, are covered under the Notification specifying the employees engaged in the Scheduled employment of Clubs. In any event, even the work of the stable workers is a branch of work forming part of such employment, it would therefore be scheduled employment. In so far as the relationship vis-à-vis BTC, the Trainers and the workmen are concerned, the competent authority has concluded that the trainers are the employer liable to pay the wages of the workmen and has presumably held that there is no privity of contract of employer and employee between BTC and the workmen. This conclusion is apparently on the admitted position that the workmen are under the direct supervision of the respective trainer who is training a particular horse and to which the workmen are assigned. And the further admitted circumstance that there were several settlements entered into between the trade unions and the trainers association in respect of wages and other service conditions of the workmen. One of the issues framed by the competent authority was as to which of the respondents, BTC or the Trainer was liable to pay the minimum wages to the workmen. The prayer in the writ petition by the workmen is hence incorrectly framed. It is not in serious dispute that the source of payment of wages is the amount paid as maintenance cost of each horse. The prayer in the writ petition by the workmen is hence incorrectly framed. It is not in serious dispute that the source of payment of wages is the amount paid as maintenance cost of each horse. BTC having made it the entire responsibility of the Owner of the horse to pay the wages of the workman through the trainer was a convenient arrangement of absolving itself of the obligation while it might also enable it to absolve itself of other legal obligations that may arise. It is this which has prompted the workmen to file the writ petition. Even if the present arrangement were to continue undisturbed, the larger question that lingers is whether the trainer or his association can be considered as the principal employer of the workmen. This is doubtful for the following reasons: The horse owners, the horses and the trainers – do not remain the same. They field their horses in other race clubs in the country and hence, are not permanent fixtures at the Club. They are replaced by other owners, horses and trainers. The workmen however, have been working in the premises of BTC for the past several years atleast as admitted even by BTC. Hence it is clear that their role as workmen at the club is well defined-their paymasters may be a floating body. The trainer who is a licencee of the Club may voluntarily leave or may even be suspended by BTC, he does not then take away the workmen who may have been supervised by him in respect of the horse of which he was the trainer. By denying the status of employees under BTC – the workmen are in a precarious position of being disowned by the BTC-if its activity was to be suspended for any reason. In the words of the apex court, “5. The true test may, with brevity, be indicated once again. Where a worker or group of workers labours to produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is, in fact, the employer. He has economic control over the workers’ subsistence, skill, and continued employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off, the worker is, virtually, laid off. Where a worker or group of workers labours to produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is, in fact, the employer. He has economic control over the workers’ subsistence, skill, and continued employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off, the worker is, virtually, laid off. The presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex contract is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment, we discern the naked truth, though draped in different perfect paper arrangement, that the real employer is the Management, not the immediate contractor. Myriad devices, half-hidden in fold after fold of legal form depending on the degree of concealment needed, the type of industry, the local conditions and the like may be resorted to when labour legislation casts welfare obligations on the real employer, based on Articles 38, 39, 42, 43 and 43-A of the Constitution. The court must be astute to avid the mischief and achieve the purpose of the law and not be misled by the maya of legal appearances.” (Hussainbhai vs. The Alash Factory Thezhilali Union (1978) 4 SCC 247). However, the question not really having arisen for consideration before the Competent Authority, namely whether BTC is indeed the principal employer of the workmen, the question remains open as it requires to be addressed with reference to material evidence, which is not readily forthcoming. In so far as the determination of the minimum wage payable and the difference directed to be paid requires to be reconsidered on two grounds, the competent authority has proceeded to determine the minimum wage payable on the basis of the minimum wage payable to a skilled worker in a club. The nature of work performed by the workmen was basically manual labour, though riding a horse may require some amount of skill, (if they are permitted to ride the horses, while exercising them). This was required to be addressed by the competent authority before holding that they were entitled to wages of skilled workmen. However, it is unfair on the part of the petitioner in WP 15266/2006 to debunk the workmen as those engaged only in clearing horse dung. This was required to be addressed by the competent authority before holding that they were entitled to wages of skilled workmen. However, it is unfair on the part of the petitioner in WP 15266/2006 to debunk the workmen as those engaged only in clearing horse dung. And secondly, in the circumstance that tabular statements are filed to spell out that the workmen have received wages that are higher than the minimum wages claimed and therefore the claim was not maintainable. This contention does not seek to have been taken before the competent authority. No such statements are filed in evidence. The workmen have not countered this. However, if this is indeed true then the claim may not be maintainable. This is again an issue which requires a closer investigation and findings of fact are to be recorded. 12. In the light of the opinion expressed hereinabove, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The claim of the workmen is remanded to the competent Authority for a fresh consideration in the following terms: The claim which is shoddily prepared and filed may be re-presented with better particulars. The claim shall be restricted to a period of three years immediately preceding the date of its first presentation in the year 2005. The claim may incorporate any subsequent period for which amounts may be due. The question whether BTC is the principal employer of the workmen, though the trainer and his association supervise and pay the workmen, may be addressed and appropriate findings given-should the workmen raise such a contention, and seek to establish the same. The Authority shall reconsider the rate of minimum wages payable to the workmen and also address the question whether they are to be considered as skilled workers or as manual labourers. The question whether the claim itself is maintainable as the workmen are said to be receiving a higher wage than the minimum wage claimed, as sought to be demonstrated by BTC as well as the trainer before this court may be considered if such a contention is raised by those parties. Having regard to the long pendency of the dispute, the Authority is directed to expedite the hearing and decide the matter in accordance with law, preferably in the English language, especially in addressing legal aspects with reference to provisions of law and the judgments of the apex court and this court.