Judgment 1. By Court Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The short but important question involved in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether GUL industry is covered under the provisions of the Minimum Wags Act, 1948. 3. The facts in short are that the petitioner appellant is a GUL manufacturing factory and GUL consists of major quantity of tobacco. According to the writ petitioner appellant, it is true that under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, under Part I of the Schedule of Act, there is an entry “employment” in any tobacco including Bidi making “manufactory” (factory) but no notification has been issued by the State Government under clause(a) of subsection(1) of Section3 of the Minimum wages Act, 1948, to include any GUL factory or manufacturer in the coverage of the Act of 1948 as further notification is required as has been done in the cases to cover “Kendu” and “Bidi” industries vide separate notifications. It is also submitted that, fixing the minimum wages for the employees working in the GUL factory, no notification has been issued. It is submitted that even after having the Entry no.3 in Part1 of the Schedule, whenever State Government wanted to fix the minimum wages for the employees working in the Tobacco manufactory (factory)then notifications were issued. To demonstrate, the learned counsel for the petitioner appellant has shown us the Notification dated 12th December, 1995; the Notification dated 5th April, 2005 and lastly the Notification whereby separate wages has been prescribed for the employee, working and processing of the Kendu leaves, which is dated 13th August, 2005, for the employees of the Bidi manufacturing factories, separate rates have been prescribed for different employment in the Bidi manufacturing manufactory. However, GUL may consist of major part of tobacco but for the employees engaged in the GUL factory, no minimum rate has been prescribed by the State Government. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner appellant vehemently submitted that Madras High Court in the case of Sasha(A.S.D.) Vrs.State of Madras, reported in (1963) 1 LLJ 29 has also considered the same issue and found that for the snuff industry no exercise has been done by the Government under Section 9 for fixing the rates and thereafter issuing a Notification and, therefore, the minimum wages for the workers in snuff industry on the advice of a committee is illegal and consequently quashed that Notification. It is submitted that the Union has relied upon the Notification of the State Government, which has no application and that is not even the Notification and that is only a letter conveying that GUL industry is governed under Clause (a) of subsection(1) of Section 3 read with Entry3 of Part I, being an industry manufacturing tobacco product. 5. Learned counsel for the State as well as the Union's representative drew our attention to the Government Notification dated 1.4.2011, copy of which has been placed as Annexure B along with the affidavit to show that appropriate Notification has been issued under the Act of 1948 and specifically under the provisions of Section 3(1)(b) as well as under Section 5, subsection(2) and fixed the minimum wages for all employees working in the shops or in any establishment described in the Schedule and which are not covered under any other Notification and, therefore, the petitioner Industry is covered under Clause(a) of subsection(1) of Section 3 read with Entry 3 of Part1 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 6. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. Section 3(1)(a) and (b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 read as follows : 3. 6. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. Section 3(1)(a) and (b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 read as follows : 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 Part by notification under Section 27: Provided that the appropriate Government may, in respect of employees employed in an employment specified in Part II of the Schedule, instead of fixing minimum rates of wages under this clause for the whole State, fix such rates for a part of the State or for any specified class or classes of such employment in the whole State or part thereof; (b) review at such intervals, as it may think fit, such intervals not exceeding five years, the minimum rates of wages so fixed and revise the minimum rates, if necessary : Provided that where for any reason the appropriate Government has not reviewed the minimum rates of wages fixed by it in respect of any scheduled employment within any interval of five years, nothing contained in this clause shall be deemed to prevent it from reviewing the minimum rates after the expiry of the said period of five years and revising them, if necessary, and until they are so revised the minimum rates in force immediately before the expiry of the said period of five years shall continue in force. Section 5 of the Act of 1948 prescribes procedure for fixing and revising minimum wages. The Act has already defined the “employer” in clause (e) of Section 2 and “employee” in clause (i) of Section 2. The “scheduled employment” has been defined in clause(g) of Section 2, which says schedule employment means an employment specified in the Schedule or any process or branch of work forming part of such employment. 7. It appears from the notification dated 1st April, 2011 that the earlier minimum wages were prescribed for all employments in all factories which are covered under Section 3 of the Act of 1948 read with PartI and II of the Schedule by the notification of 2005. Those minimum wages have been revised by the notification dated 1st April, 2011. 7. It appears from the notification dated 1st April, 2011 that the earlier minimum wages were prescribed for all employments in all factories which are covered under Section 3 of the Act of 1948 read with PartI and II of the Schedule by the notification of 2005. Those minimum wages have been revised by the notification dated 1st April, 2011. The minimum wages are applicable to all employees, whether they are skilled, semi skilled or unskilled working in any of the Establishment described in Part I and II of the Schedule annexed with the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Notification dated 1st April, 2011 cannot be read as applicable to the Shops and Establishments as defined in Shops and Commercial Establishments Act only because of the reason of mentioning of the word “shop” or “establishment” in the notification, when the language of the notification dated 1st April, 2011 is very specific and clear that it has been issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 under the relevant provisions whereunder the minimum wages are required to be prescribed by the State Government. Therefore, the factory cannot be said to be not covered under the Notification dated 1st April, 2011 because of non using of the word “factory” as such and because of using the word “establishment” in the Notification dated April, 2011. Otherwise also establishment is wider term and it includes factory also. Therefore, petitioner's unit is squarely covered under the provisions of the Act of 1948. 8. So far judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Sasha(A.S.D.) is concerned, in that case there was a controversy with respect to issuance of an order which was not issued after following of the procedures as prescribed under Section 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and consequential notification under Section 5 for revising the rates for snuff industry. In that fact situation, it has been held that the intention of Sections 5 and 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 clearly is that before fixing minimum wages for employees in scheduled industries the Government must have the necessary material for consideration in the form of advice by a committee. In that fact situation, it has been held that the intention of Sections 5 and 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 clearly is that before fixing minimum wages for employees in scheduled industries the Government must have the necessary material for consideration in the form of advice by a committee. The case before us is not a case of prescribing of a minimum wages higher than the minimum wages applicable by general notification by prescribing a different rate of minimum wages for specific industry falling and covered under PartI of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. There may be general notification of fixing minimum wages of all the Units covered under the 1948 Act, and to fix the rate of minimum wages, according to the work of the employees, like skilled, semi skilled or unskilled employee. There may be reason for having special wages for special industries for which there may be different consideration, which may require certain additional material and data for the purpose of finding out which should be the minimum wages for specific industry and for that purpose the powers have been given to the Government to consider, notify and from time to time revise the minimum wages for specific industries as per Part I and II of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Therefore, the judgment of Madras High Court has no application, in the facts of the present case. 9. In that view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in rejection of the appellant's writ petition by the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.