JUDGMENT : K.K. Sasidharan, J. These intra-court appeals are directed against the common order dated 12.10.2007 in W.P.(MD) Nos.7620, 7618, 7619, 7617 and 7621 of 2006 and the common order dated 17.10.2007, in W.P.(MD) Nos.4184, 4185, 4183 of 2006 and 6653 of 2005 respectively, whereby and where under, the learned Single Judge negatived the prayer to quash the order passed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, directing payment of differential wage with penalty. 2. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.1220 of 2008 is at the instance of Southern Cottage Beedi Manufacturers Association and the prayer is to direct the first and second respondents to finalise the fixation of rates of minimum wages for workers in Beedi Industry by adopting zonal wise minimum wage fixation based on the cost of index numbers of Nagercoil or Madurai, in terms of Section 3(3)(a)(iv) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 3. The learned Single Judge considered the Writ Petitions challenging the order passed by the competent authority and held that the Management failed to pay the minimum wages. It was held that since they have paid wages in terms of settlement, it had resulted in a short payment and, therefore, the authority under the Minimum Wages Act was competent to decide the said issue. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have come up with these intra-court appeals. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in the intra-court appeals in W.A.(MD) Nos.80 to 84 of 2008, 73, 74, 76 of 2008 and the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.1220 of 2008, by placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in AIR 1969 SC 1335 , Athani Municipality v. Labour Court, Hubli and 1991(1) LLN SC 304 , Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Chandi Lal Sadu, contended that if there is no dispute as to rates of wages between the employer and the employee and the question is whether a particular payment at the agreed rate is due or not, then Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act would not be attracted and the remedy is only to make a claim under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act or under the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the learned Senior Counsel, there was a settlement made under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such, the Management was justified in not paying the minimum wages. According to the learned Senior Counsel, there was a settlement made under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such, the Management was justified in not paying the minimum wages. The workers approached a wrong forum and obtained orders. Since the authority under the Minimum Wages Act was not competent to look into such issues, the order passed by the said authority is non-est in law. 5. The learned Senior Counsel, in support of his plea in the Writ Petition, submitted that the competent authority has been fixing minimum wages without adopting a zonal wise criteria and as such, a Mandamus should be issued to fix minimum wages for beedi workers afresh. 6. The substantial contention made by the appellants pertains to the jurisdiction of the authority under the Minimum Wages Act to decide the issue raised by the Assistant Inspector of Labour. According to the Management, they have been paying wages, in terms of the settlement arrived at under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The question, therefore, is as to whether the authority was having jurisdiction to decide the issue under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 7. There is no dispute that the Management took a position before the competent authority that they have not been paying the wages, in terms of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. According to the Management, payments were made only in terms of the settlement. Therefore, it is very clear that payment of wages in accordance with the settlement had resulted in a short payment. 8. Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, pre-supposes that there is a dispute with regard to payment of wages less than the minimum rates of wages. Here, in the subject case, even according to the Management, they were not paying the minimum wages. It is their explanation that the wages fixed as per the settlement is being paid to workman and as such, there is no question of payment of minimum rates of wages fixed under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 9. Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, provides for fixing of minimum rates of wages. It is their explanation that the wages fixed as per the settlement is being paid to workman and as such, there is no question of payment of minimum rates of wages fixed under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 9. Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, provides for fixing of minimum rates of wages. There is a statutory obligation on the part of the appropriate Government to fix the minimum rates of wages payable to the 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 of the Act. 10. Section 12 provides that the employer shall pay to every employee engaged in a scheduled employment under him, wages at a rate not less than the minimum rate of wages fixed by such notification for that class of employees in that employment without any kind of deductions. 11. The authority under the Minimum Wages Act found that the workers were paid less than the minimum wages. Even the appellants have no case that they have been paying the minimum wages. The appellants have justified the less payment on the ground that it was made in accordance with the settlement. The fact that the payment was made in accordance with a settlement would not divest the statutory authority of considering the question as to whether interference is needed under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 12. There is a dispute as to the rates inasmuch as the Management has taken up a contention that the wages fixed under the settlement was paid to the employees. Since there was a dispute regarding the rate of wages payable to the employees, the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act was perfectly justified in entertaining the petition under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The learned Single Judge scanned the provisions and the judgments of the Supreme Court and correctly concluded that the authority was well within its powers under Section 20 to decide the matter. 13. The authority was perfectly correct in directing payment with penalty. W.P.(MD)No.1220 of 2008: 14. The petitioner wanted a direction to the statutory authority to fix the minimum wages, taking into account the zonal wise rate. 15. 13. The authority was perfectly correct in directing payment with penalty. W.P.(MD)No.1220 of 2008: 14. The petitioner wanted a direction to the statutory authority to fix the minimum wages, taking into account the zonal wise rate. 15. There is no dispute that the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 contain the provisions dealing with fixation of minimum rates of wages and the various factors to be taken into account while fixing such wages. There is no question of issuing a Mandamus, directing the Government to exercise the power in a particular manner. The petitioner cannot be heard to say that the Government would not follow the law while fixing the minimum wages. In fact, the learned Additional Advocate General very fairly submitted that in case a representation is made by the petitioner, the same would also be considered, while fixing minimum wages. In any case, there is no question of issuing a Mandamus to fix the rate in a particular manner. We make it clear that the authority shall fix the minimum wages in accordance with the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 16. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the intra-court appeals. The intra-court appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. 17. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.