ORDER Aravind Kumar J.—The Employees Union being aggrieved by the order passed by Labour Officer cum Minimum Wages Authority dated February 28, 2006 (Annexure-H) is seeking for setting aside the said order and for a direction to the first respondent to pay minimum wages as claimed before the said Authority relating to the period from April 1, 2001 to March 31, 2002. Heard Smt. Suguna R. Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. K.R. Anand, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Sri Jagadeesh Mundargi, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2. Perused the impugned order as also the records secured from, the Authority. 2. The point of dispute between the parties namely the workmen represented by their union and the management revolves around short point namely, applicability of the notification issued by the appropriate government dated January 14, 2004 (Annexure-A) under the Minimum Wages Act. It is the contention of Smt. Suguna R. Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that goods/items manufactured by the first respondent company are electronic in nature and notification at Annexure-A is squarely applicable to the workmen who are engaged in the said work and non-consideration of this aspect by the Minimum Wages Authority in proper perspective has resulted in great prejudice to the workmen resulting in deprivation of their legitimate dues payable by the management. She also contends that evidence available on record before the Authority would go to show that first respondent is engaged in the manufacture of electrical lighting, fittings and its accessories and its manufacturing activity also includes manufacturing of electronic products like ballast and use of choke in its factory. She contends that 2nd respondent failed to consider the fact that there are several machineries in the factory, it is corroborated by Exhibit R-38 and as such the conclusion arrived at by the Minimum Wages Authority that the notification (Annexure-A) is not applicable to the petitioner workmen is erroneous. She would elaborate her submission by contending that the reasoning adopted by the Authority to hold that the first respondent is engaged in only electrical manufacturing activity is erroneous since evidence namely admission of the witness examined on behalf of the management would go to show that they are also manufacturing electronic items/goods such as ballast and chokes. She would elaborate her submission by contending that the reasoning adopted by the Authority to hold that the first respondent is engaged in only electrical manufacturing activity is erroneous since evidence namely admission of the witness examined on behalf of the management would go to show that they are also manufacturing electronic items/goods such as ballast and chokes. She would also rely upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mangalore Ganesh Beedi and Allied Beedi Factories Workers Association v. State of Karnataka and Others 2003(5) Kar.L.J. 26 (DB): LNIND 2003 KANT 371 : 2003-III-LLJ-861, whereunder the intention behind the enactment of Minimum Wages Act was under consideration and she submits that the said payment, of minimum wages being statutory liability, the applicability of the notification at Annexure-A cannot be held in negative to deny the claim of workmen and it has to be read and understood by noticing the purpose behind such legislation. On these grounds, she seeks for allowing of the writ petition. 3. Per contra Sri. K.R. Anand, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent while supporting the order passed by the Authority would contend that license that has been obtained by the first respondent is for manufacturing electrical goods namely, tube-lights, electrical fittings and chokes. He contends that application was made by the union on the assumption that the first respondent is an electronic industry and admittedly, the choke which is manufactured by the first respondent company is not an electronic item and as such notification at Annexure-A which extends to the workers engaged in electronic industry cannot be made applicable to the petitioner workmen and they cannot be paid wages as prescribed thereunder. He would submit that appropriate Authority after considering the entire evidence on record as also the material placed by respective parties has arrived at a conclusion while answering issue No. 3 to hold that activity carried on by the first respondent company is "electrical manufacturing activity" and not "electronic manufacturing activity". On these grounds by reiterating the contentions raised before the Authority he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. On these grounds by reiterating the contentions raised before the Authority he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. As observed herein above the issue in this writ petition revolves on payment of wages to workmen of 1st respondent factory on the basis of Annexure-A or otherwise a perusal of the said notification would clearly go to show that appropriate government under the Minimum Wages Act has issued the said notification covering the employees working in "electronic industry". 5. The prime contention, raised before the Authority as well as before this Court by the petitioner is that choke manufactured by the petitioner company is to be construed or held as an electronic item/goods and as such the notification under Annexure-A has to be held as applicable to them. The appropriate Authority after considering the pleadings available on record had formulated three issues for its adjudication and issue No. 3 framed was relating to applicability of the above said notification (Annexure-A). While answering the said issue in the negative entire evidence available on record has been taken into consideration. 6. It is not in dispute that first respondent is carrying on the manufacture of electrical goods, fittings, tube-lights, etc. and has obtained license in this regard. The said document was produced before the appropriate authority including the license issued by the Director of Industries which is at Exhibit R-40. It is specifically mentioned therein that said license relates to lighting, tilting, etc. It has also been elicited in the cross-examination of the witness examined on behalf of the management that several parts for the tube-lights are procured from outside for being assembled as an electrical fitting. It is stated by R.W. 1 i.e. choke is manufactured by using coil at their factory premises. It is this choke which is also called in commercial parlance as "Ballast". It is seen that there are two types of Ballasts namely, (i) electrical ballast; (ii) electronic ballast It was contended by the petitioner that what was manufactured by 1st respondent factory is an electronic Ballast. On the other hand, it was contended by the management that they manufacture electrical Ballast. 7. It is seen that there are two types of Ballasts namely, (i) electrical ballast; (ii) electronic ballast It was contended by the petitioner that what was manufactured by 1st respondent factory is an electronic Ballast. On the other hand, it was contended by the management that they manufacture electrical Ballast. 7. As found from the encyclopedia of Wikipedia, it is noticed that choke ballast (inductor) is used in lighting which is intended to limit the amount of current in electric circuit and is used extensively in fluorescent lamps to limit the current through the tube, which would otherwise rise to destructive levels due to the tube's negative resistance characteristic. It has been explained as to what is electrical ballast in the following manner: An electrical ballast is a device intended to limit the amount of current in an electric circuit. A familiar and widely used example is the inductive ballast used in fluorescent lamps, to limit the current through the tube, which would otherwise rise to destructive levels due to the tube's negative resistance characteristic. Ballasts vary greatly in complexity. They can be as simple as a series resistor as commonly used with small neon lamps or light-emitting diodes (LEDs). For higher power installations, too much energy would be wasted in a resistive ballast, so alternatives are used that depend upon the reactance of inductors, capacitors, or both. Finally, ballasts can be as complex as the computerized, remote-controlled electronic ballasts now often used with fluorescent lamps. 8. The electrical ballast is also used in fluorescent lamp and to manufacture electronic ballast the prime requirement is circuit. And to provide proper starting and operating electrical conditions and for getting higher value or higher output the electronic ballast is also used in fluorescent lamps. In the same encyclopedia the electronic ballast is explained as under: An electronic lamp ballast uses solid state electronic circuitry to provide the proper starting and operating electrical condition to power one or more fluorescent lamps and more recently HID lamps. Electronic ballasts usually change the frequency of the power from the standard mains frequency of 50-60 HZ to 20000 HZ or higher, substantially eliminating the stroboscopic effect of flicker (a product of the line frequency) associated with fluorescent lighting (see photosensitive epilepsy). In addition, because more gas remains ionized in the arc stream, the lamps actually operate at about 9% higher efficacy above approximately 10 kHz. In addition, because more gas remains ionized in the arc stream, the lamps actually operate at about 9% higher efficacy above approximately 10 kHz. Lamp efficacy increases sharply at about 10 kHz and continues to improve until approximately 20 kHz. Because of the higher efficiency of the ballast itself and the improvement of lamp efficacy by operating at a higher frequency, electronic ballasts offer higher system efficacy for low pressure lamps like the fluorescent lamp. For HID lamps there is no improvement of the lamp efficacy in using higher frequency, but for these lamps the; ballast losses are lower at higher frequencies and also the light depreciation is lower meaning more light after a given operating time of say 10 000 hours. Some HID lamp types like the ceramic discharge metal halide lamp have reduced reliability when operated at high frequencies in the range of 20-200 kHz and for these lamps a square wave low frequency current drive is mostly used with frequency in the range of 100-400 Hz, with the same advantage of lower light depreciation. Electronic ballasts are often based on the SMPS topology, first rectifying the input power and then chopping it at a high frequency. Advanced electronic-ballasts may allow dimming via pulse-width modulation or via changing the frequency to a higher value and remote control and monitoring via networks such as Lon Works, DALI, DMX512, DSI or simple analog control using a 0-10V DC brightness control signal. Recently also systems remotely controlling the dim level via a wireless mesh network have been introduced. 9. Keeping the scientific explanation in mind as extracted herein above and also taking into consideration the material produced by the respective parties before the competent Authority when rival contentions examined, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that what is manufactured by the first respondent is a "electrical ballast" and not "electronic ballast". In the cross-examination of R.W. 1 which has been extracted by the Authority would go to show the mode, manner and the process that is involved in the manufacturing activity of the choke/Ballast manufactured by them and it cannot be construed or held that it is an electronic ballast since none of the ingredients as defined under scientific explanation are present. Documents which were strongly relied upon by the petitioner to contend that it is an electronic ballast was Exhibit R-37,37-A, 37-B and 37-C, namely, the invoice and label-stickers. This would go to show that it is an invoice raised by Surpiya Enterprises in favour of the first respondent company and the said sticker relates to the goods/items manufactured by Crompton Greaves and it is not manufactured by the first respondent. Exhibit R-37, 37-A, 37-B, 37-C relates to stickers affixed by Crompton Greaves on their products. It was also contended that in the Memorandum and Articles of Association relating to 1st respondents/company themselves have admitted that they are new to the area of manufacturing electrical goods and as such a presumption has to be drawn that what is manufactured by them is electronic goods and not electrical goods. However, no such inferences can be drawn merely on the basis of a clause found in the Memorandum and Articles of Association in as much as the said clause covers not only what activity is carried on by them but also covers what activities are not carried on by them also. 10. In a given situation a company in its commercial prudence may incorporate all its future products in its Memorandum and Articles of Association and that by itself would not be sufficient to hold that they are also carrying on the activities enumerated in the Memorandum and Articles of Association. The said contention would be far fetched. However, that may be one of the relevant factors to consider the said contention. As such when the contention raised by petitioner are examined on the basis of the available records, findings arrived at by the competent Authority cannot be held either to be contrary to records or an erroneous finding has been arrived at. In fact, the certificate issued by Technical Consultancy Organisation of Karnataka, a Government of Karnataka Organization as per Exhibit R-2 dated February 7, 2006 would go to establish the fact that goods manufactured by the first respondent company is classified as "electrical items" and not as "electronic items". It is also noticed that a feeble attempt has been made by the petitioner-workmen to contend that first respondent company also manufactures electronic goods and it has failed in its attempt miserably since no material in this regard was placed. 11. It is also noticed that a feeble attempt has been made by the petitioner-workmen to contend that first respondent company also manufactures electronic goods and it has failed in its attempt miserably since no material in this regard was placed. 11. As observed herein above, choke or Ballast which is manufactured by the first respondent company is by the process of using base plate with copper wire found around it and insulation film is rapped over the copper wire. There is no electronic circuit available so as to bring the said item within the scope of electronic Ballast. As such the appropriate Authority was of the view that activity carried on by the first respondent company is electrical and not electronic and it has rightly held so. In that view of the matter notification issued at Annexure-A is inapplicable to the employees of the first respondent company. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the said authority for the reasons aforesaid. Be that as it may, the fact that, workmen of 1st respondent have been recognized on par with the workers working in 5 the electronic industry and they are being paid the minimum wages from February 29, 2005 and said fact is not in dispute, in as much as the report submitted by the labour Inspector would evidence this fact and it is also not disputed by the first respondent company, but on the other hand same is accepted. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the first respondent company itself has recognized these workmen to be on par with the workmen working in the electronic ballast w.e.f. 2005, ends of justice would be met if the first respondent company is given liberty to consider the prayer of workmen for grant of some solacium to the petitioners who had filed claim petitions before the Minimum Wages Authority and who have been pursuing their claim and who are on the rolls of the first respondent company as on date as one time measure. With these observations I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the 2nd respondent Authority. Hence, writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.