JUDGMENT :- 1. In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners are workmen. Aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the First Additional Labour Court, Chennai in the Claim Petition Nos.41/1998, 1249/1997, 1254/1997, 42/1998, 1252/1997, 1253/997, 1255/1997 and 1224 of 1997 dated 29.2.2008, the present Writ Petitions were filed. 2. The Writ Petitions were admitted on 16.10.2008 and 31.10.2008. Since in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioners were successful for getting an exparte order, which was challenged by the contesting respondents before this Court and at the time of disposal of the Writ Petitions, this Court had directed the amounts to be deposited to the credit of various Claim Petitions. The contesting respondents have also deposited the amount. Therefore, the petitioners in the second round of litigation have lost their case and convinced this Court that since they have a prima facie case, the amounts already in deposit could not be withdrawn by the contesting respondent. Hence, this Court granted an interim injunction restraining the Labour Court from permitting the contesting respondents to withdraw the amount. But, the interim injunction is still in force. 3. The claim made by the petitioners are that they were working as Pump Operator for several years and they have not been paid the minimum wages fixed by the State Government in terms of G.O.Ms.No.449, Labour and Employment Department dated 6.6.1997 and clarified by the letter of Commissioner of Labour dated 7.2.2001. Initially, the petitioners workmen made the Commissioner for Thiruvalangadu Panchayat Union as well as the concerned President of Veeraraghavapuram Panchayat, Ramapuram Panchayat, Muthukondapuram and Pazhayanur Panchayats as party respondents to the Claim Petitions. 4. Before the Labour Court, the petitions filed under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act were assigned to be Claim Petition Numbers and the following table will show the name of the worker, the number of the Claim Petition and the Panchayat in which they are working: Name of the worker Claim Petition Panchayatin which the worker is working R.M.Subramani C.P.No.41 of 1998 VeeraraghavapuramPanchayat T.M.Srinivasan C.P.No.1249 of 1997 RamapuramPanchayat K.Subramani C.P.No.1254 of 1997 ThiruvalangaduPanchayat P.Murugesan C.P.No.42 of 1998 MuthukondapuramPanchayat Elumalai C.P.No.1252 of 1997 RamapuramPanchayat Periyasamy C.P.No.1253 of 1997 ThiruvalangaduPanchayat Jayabalan C.P.No.1255 of 1997 RamapuramPanchayat S.Devanesan C.P.No.1224 of 1997 PazhayanurPanchayat 5. On notice from the Labour Court, the counter statements were filed and the Commissioner of Panchayat Union took the stand that the Panchayats are separate entities and he cannot be described as an employer and they were wrongly joined as party and therefore no relief can be claimed against them and the Claim Petitions should be dismissed as against them. In respect of the Panchayats, the stand was that the Minimum Wage Notification is not applicable to the Pump Operator and their employment is only casual and they were working only one or two hours per day. The Panchayats, which were made as parties in these Claim Petitions were made ex parte. 6. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the workmen identical set of documents were filed and they were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On the side of the respondent, 5 documents were filed and marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.5. No oral evidence was let in. The Labour Court on the basis of the materials placed before it came to the conclusion that since the Panchayat Union Commissioner is not an employer, no relationship can be claimed as against him and he is wrongly impleaded as party respondent. 7. On the claim for minimum wages, the Labour Court held that the Minimum Wages Act provides for providing minimum wages and it will not apply to a petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. Strangely, the Labour Court held that since there is no pre-existing right on the part of the workmen to file a petition under Section 33-C (2), the claim is not maintainable. The Labour Court also held that the petitioners were guilty of delay and laches. 8. As to whether the claim for minimum wages can be made in a petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Act came to be considered by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Municipal Council, Akola vs. II Labour Court, Nagpur and others reported in 1976 (1) LLJ 334. In that case, it is held that though under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, limitation is prescribed by the Minimum Wages Authorities from computing the amount, such limitations are not available in a petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In this context, it is useful to refer to paragraph 5 and it was observed as follows: "5. In this context, it is useful to refer to paragraph 5 and it was observed as follows: "5. As observed by the Supreme Court in Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli (1969-II LLJ 651), no limitation is prescribed for filling application under S.33C (2) of the Act. However, a period of limitation has been prescribed by the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, so far as the authority constituted under the Minimum Wages Act is concerned, it has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim made by the employees which is barred by limitation, unless the delay in filing the application is condoned by the Authority. That is not the case so far as the Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act is concerned. As no period of limitation is prescribed for filing an application under S.33C(2) of the Act, it is open for the Labour Court to entertain the claims made by the employees which are barred by limitation under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in Union of India v. Shri Samuel Peters, Special Civil Application No.845 of 1969, decided on 15.1.1974." 9. The Supreme Court in Town Municipal Council, Athani vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli and others reported in AIR 1969 SC 1335 has held that the limitation will not apply to the proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Though the Labour Court may be rightly saying that the Commissioner of Panchayat Union was not an employer in relation to employees of the Panchayat, but with reference to the other findings that the Claim Petition under Section 33-C (2) is not maintainable and the claim petition under Section 33-C (2) cannot be filed with considerable delay, are erroneous and contrary to the decisions cited supra. 10. It must be noted that in W.P.Nos.10844 to 10846 of 2005 dated 13.6.2011, this Court has held that the Pump Operator is covered by the Minimum Wages Notification in G.O.Ms.No.449, Labour and Employment Department dated 6.6.1997 though the term "Pump Operator" is not used therein, the description "Pump Set Drivers" applies to "Pump Operator" and it has also been clarified by the Commissioner of Labour by Circular addressed to all the authorities concerned. In that context, this Court has held that the similar computation being ordered by the Labour Court was fully justified and does not call for interference. 11. In view of the above, all the Writ Petitions stand allowed and the impugned order stands set aside. The respective Claim Petitions are restored on the file of the 1st respondent with a direction to the 1st respondent to proceed with the calculation of the amounts due to the petitioners and pass orders accordingly. The said exercise shall be undertaken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after due notice to the respective Panchayat. Since the petitioners have made a prima facie case in their favour and their claim is covered by the reasoning given by this Court in the batch of Writ Petitions referred to above, the amount lying in deposit will be continued to be in deposit. Depending upon the outcome of the Labour Court order, the petitioners can withdraw the amounts lying in deposit. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.