JUDGMENT N.K. Patil, J. 1. These appeals are by the appellant/petitioner questioning the legality and correctness of the impugned order dated 3.11.2009 passed in W.P. No. 26345/2005 (L-MW) by the learned Single Judge, wherein the appellant/petitioner had assailed the correctness of the order dated 7.10.2005 passed by respondent No. 2-Labour Officer and Minimum Wages Claim Authority on the ground that respondent No. 1 does not have any power as on the date of inspecting the premises. The said writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner was rejected. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed the present appeal. Brief facts of the case are as under: "The appellant/petitioner-Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 owns and manages a hospital-cum-Medical Research Centre and has engaged respondent Nos. 4 to 16 in different posts such as Lab Technicians, Ambulance driver, Receptionist, Ayah, Nursing orderly, Staff nurse, Ward boy and Sanitary worker. The respondents, alleging short payment in monthly wage, less than the minimum wage prescribed by notification of the year 1996 under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short 'Act'), filed application invoking sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act for determination of the difference In minimum wage and penalty. In the application, the appellant had contended that they have filed detailed objections and opposed the claim. Inspite of that, the authority has not considered the same. Therefore, application filed by the appellant/petitioner was rejected by the Minimum Wages Authority. The same has been questioned in W.P. No. 5137/2005. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 21.2.2005 rejected the petition, permitting the petitioner to urge the point of jurisdiction and to cross-examine the applicants/respondent Nos. 4 to 16. Consequent, thereto, the appellant/petitioner cross-examined the applicants/respondent Nos. 4 to 16 and thereafter did not lead-evidence in support of its case. The respondent No. 2-authority under the Act, having regard to the material on record and more appropriately the admission of the appellant on 11.12.2002 and 21.8.2003 that, the applicants would be paid the difference of minimum wage, if granted a month's time, by order dated (sic).10.2005, allowed the applications, directed the payment of Rs. 42,101 as the difference in wage, Rs. 2,10,505 as the penalty (five times the difference in wage), totalling Rs. 2,52,606 in respect of 13 respondents. 42,101 as the difference in wage, Rs. 2,10,505 as the penalty (five times the difference in wage), totalling Rs. 2,52,606 in respect of 13 respondents. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the respondent No. 2, the appellant filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge. In the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the earlier order and following the judgment of this Court in N.S. Srinivasamurthy & Others v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka and Ors. has rejected the writ petition. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant herein has filed the present appeal." 2. Submission of Sri Somashekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant at the out set is that, learned Single Judge has erred in rejecting the writ petition and confirming the direction to pay Rs. 42,101 as difference in wage and penalty five times the difference in wage, totalling Rs. 2,52,606 in respect of 13 respondents. The amendment to Section 70and Section 118 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act as amended by Section 3 of Act No. 2 of 2000 which came into force on 20.6.2000, specifically lay down that no Court or Labour or Revenue Courts or Industrial Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such disputes. In the instant case, the application was filed under the Minimum Wages Act before the respondent No. 2 on 16.9.2002. Therefore, it is crystal clear that after amendment came into force, the respondents have no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 16. However, learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the decision in the case of N.S. Srinivasamurthy and Others v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka and others and rejected the writ petition. Further, he has contended at para 13 of the memorandum of appeal that, if for any reason this Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that the claim application under the Minimum Wages Act is maintainable, then the appellant may kindly be granted one month's time to pay the difference of wages of Rs. 42,105 to the 13 employees. In such an event, the appellant submits that levy of five times penalty of Rs. 2,10,505 is unwarranted and unjustified on the ground that the appellant-Society is running under loss and is not financially sound. 42,105 to the 13 employees. In such an event, the appellant submits that levy of five times penalty of Rs. 2,10,505 is unwarranted and unjustified on the ground that the appellant-Society is running under loss and is not financially sound. The accumulated loss as on 31.3.2008 is Rs. 12,13,548. He is further quick to point out that, levy of five times penalty on a Cooperative Society which is being run on philanthropic approach to- render medical aid to the public at Mysore is not justifiable. 3. As against this, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 sought to substantiate the impugned order passed by the learned -Single Judge. After due consideration of the material on record and the undertaking given by the appellant-Society on 11.12.2002 and 21.8.2003 and following the judgment passed by this Court in the case of N.S. Srinivasamurthy and Others v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka and others. But, after going through the amendment to Section 70and Section 118 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, which came into force on 20.06.2000, the application under Minimum Wages Act before respondent No. 2 on 16.9.2002 is not maintainable as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. Further, he is quick to point out that respondent Nos. 4 to 16 have rendered their services and they are entitled to minimum wages as per the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, he submitted that, that portion of the order may be confirmed and the same may be considered in accordance with law. 4. After careful consideration of the submission made by the learned counsel for both the parties and perusal of the order and the ground urged in the memorandum of appeal, it emerges that respondent No. 1 submitted his application on 16.9.2002 before the respondent No. 2. On the basis of the relevant material on record, the respondent No. 2 being a Claim Authority allowed the claim petition and rightly issued direction to the appellant/Society to pay difference of wages of Rs. 42,101 and five times penalty at Rs. 2,10,505 totally Rs. 2,52,606. Not being satisfied with the said order passed, they filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 26345/2005(L-MW). 42,101 and five times penalty at Rs. 2,10,505 totally Rs. 2,52,606. Not being satisfied with the said order passed, they filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 26345/2005(L-MW). By order dated 3.11.2009 the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition following the judgment of this Court in the case of N.S. Srinivasamurthy and Others v. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies in Karnataka and others and also on the basis of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant on instructions that difference of wages would be paid if one month time is granted. Respondent Nos. 4 to 16 are liable for Minimum Wages as per the Minimum Wages Act. As per the amendment to Section 70 and Section 118 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, the authorities do not have the jurisdiction to entertain the application. Respondent Nos. 4 to 16 are working sincerely under the appellant/Society to meet the day-to-day necessities. Taking these factors into consideration and taking into consideration the essential requirements and the standard of living, we are of the considered view that interference by this Court so far as the payment of difference of wages of Rs. 42,401 to the respondent Nos. 4 to 16 does not call for. The Society is being run on philanthropic approach to render medical aid to the public at Mysore and not a commercial vehicle should not have been saddled with such penalty. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, such penalty of Rs. 2,10,505 levying five times penalty is not justifiable. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed in part and direction issued to pay five times penalty is liable to be set aside. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the writ appeals filed by the appellant are allowed in part. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 3.11.2009 passed in W.P. No. 26345/2005 (L-MW) so far as it relates to imposing five times penalty of Rs. 2,10,505 is hereby set aside. However, the direction of respondent No. 2-Minimum Wages Claim Authority to pay difference in wage of Rs. 42,101 remains undisturbed. In view of disposal of the appeal, the relief sought in Misc. W. 7807/2010 for stay does not survive for consideration. Hence, Misc. W. 7807/2010 stands disposed of as having become infructuous.