JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. The petitioner workmen of Bolani Ores Mines represented through Keonjhar Mining Workers Union have filed this writ application challenging the order dated 15.01.2001 of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar and authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 in Application No.MWA/64/2000 which is an application under section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereafter 'M.W. Act') in holding that he is not competent to decide the matter and the appropriate remedy would be to take recourse to the provisions of section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner has further prayed to declare the action of opp. party no.2 i.e. the Management of Bolani Ores Mines, by not granting benefits under the M.W. Act to the forty one workmen as per list under Annexure-1 in view of the notification dated 12.07.1994 of the Ministry of Labour, Government of India under Annexure-7 and NJCS (National Joint Committee for Steel Industry) agreement of 1995 under Annexure-4 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner has further prayed to release the said benefits under the M.W. Act to the workmen from the respective dates of their appointment and to declare the action of the opp. party no.2 by making deduction and recovery of paid 10% interim relief as illegal and arbitrary with a further prayer to refund of such dues to the workmen. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the group of workmen number forty one were appointed in Bolani Ores Mines in the year 1992 in different capacities such as Senior Operative trainees, Junior Operative trainees and trainees (un-skilled) and they were performing their duties sincerely and faithfully and receiving payments of wages as per their appointment letters in three different scale of pay along with other allowances as admissible time to time to the other similar category of employees. As per All India Level Revision of 1989 Agreement, the Management extended the interim relief @ 10% rise in wages to all its employees and accordingly, these forty one workmen were also paid arrear wages from their respective date of joining till 31.05.1994 towards interim relief and their monthly wages were revised accordingly. As per All India Level Revision of 1989 Agreement, the Management extended the interim relief @ 10% rise in wages to all its employees and accordingly, these forty one workmen were also paid arrear wages from their respective date of joining till 31.05.1994 towards interim relief and their monthly wages were revised accordingly. Subsequently the SAIL Authority issued a circular under Annexure-5 in the year 1995 clarifying the provision for proper implementation of NJCS Agreement wherein it was held the adhoc monthly payment @ 10% of basic plus FDA as on 01.01.1992 is admissible to the employees who were on rolls as on 01.01.1992 and 16.02.1994 and those who joined on or after 01.01.1992 till 16.06.1994 and the employees who had joined the company after 15.05.1994 are not eligible for receipt of the adhoc payments. Basing on the Government of India notification dated 12.07.1994 and 1995 NJCS Agreement, the petitioner Union demanded before the opp. party no.2-Management to release the less payment of Rs.3,88,257/- (rupees three lakhs eighty eight thousand two hundred and fifty seven only) to the forty one workmen. The claim application under section 20(2) of the M.W. Act was registered before the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Barbil which was then forwarded to the opposite party no.1 i.e. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar as per letter dated 09.02.2000 for payment of claim amount of Rs.3,88,257/- as less payment and Rs.38,82,570/- as compensation. It is the further case of the petitioner that the minimum wages as per notification of the Govt. of India and NJCS settlement were not paid to the forty one workmen rather the opposite party no.2 Management whimsically and arbitrarily deducted and recovered 10% interim relief which had already been paid to the workmen in spite of the pendency of the Minimum Wages proceeding before the Regional Labour Commissioner. The request of the Union to the Management to refrain from unfair labour practice and refund of illegally deducted money was not considered. The Union challenged the action of the Management relating to the illegal deduction made from the wages of the workmen which was registered as OJC No.9644 of 2000. This Court disposed of the writ application on 18.10.2000 with a direction to the Union to approach the competent authority before whom the proceeding is pending and further directed the competent authority to pass necessary order within stipulated time. This Court disposed of the writ application on 18.10.2000 with a direction to the Union to approach the competent authority before whom the proceeding is pending and further directed the competent authority to pass necessary order within stipulated time. In pursuance of the direction of this Court, the petitioner Union filed an application on 27.10.2000 before the opposite party no.1 for declaring that the deduction/recovery made by the Management to be illegal and further to stop such deduction/recovery and to refund the deducted/recovered amount. The opposite party no.1 passed an order on 27.11.2000 suggesting the Management not to deduct such amount till finalization of the case. 4. The opposite party no.1, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar in its impugned order held as follows:- "After going through the statements put forth by respective parties as well as hearing them, the following position is revealed. The listed workers in the present case were appointed as Senior operative trainees, Junior operative trainees and trainees (un-skilled) on different dates in 1992. According to the appointment letters issued to them, the SOT, JOT and trainees (un-skilled) were appointed on a consolidated/fixed pay of Rs.1550/-, Rs.1415/- and Rs.1350/- per month respectively. These trainee workers were regularized and put in their regular scale after completion of one year of training. The contention of the management is that this consolidated pay was nothing, but a stipend during the period of training. As per the terms of their appointment accepted by the trainees, their training period was one year after which they have been regularized and they have been paid their scale of pay along with allowances due from their respective date of regularization. The management contended that during the training period these employees were not entitled to any other payment than consolidated pay of Rs.1550/-, Rs.1415/- and Rs.1350/- respectively per month for the categorizes SOT, JOT and trainee (unskilled). The statement of Annexure to the present application by the applicant however does not reflect any calculation of the alleged less payment except that an amount is indicated against each of the 41 workers under the heading "less wages claimed during the period of training of one year of the employees. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx The employer has to pay such notified wages without any deduction except as may be authorized. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx The employer has to pay such notified wages without any deduction except as may be authorized. The explanation-5 of the notification No. S.O.514 E dtd.12.07.1994 provides that any higher wages in terms of contract or agreement or otherwise shall be protected and treated as the minimum rates of wages for the purpose of the notification. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.769 & 770 of 1984, their lordship observed that "Labour Law Minimum Wages Act, 1948- Ss.3 and 12-Even if an industry creates a different category of workers outside the recognized categories of workers in respect of whom minimum wages are fixed under the Act such as the category of 'learners' created in this case, held, it will not be permitted to pay less than the minimum for the lowest level employee in that industry viz. un-skilled workmen- Basic objective is to avoid exploitation by management- Hence, irrespective of whether relationship of master and servant comes into being, persons placed in the category of 'learners' in an industry are entitled to minimum wages prescribed for an unskilled workers in that industry. In view of the said judgment, the un-skilled workers, Junior Operative trainees, Senior Operative trainees cannot be paid less than the regular worker. Further these category of workers do not find place in certified standing orders of the Company." The opposite party no.1 after holding thus came to observe that the case does not involve any question of less payment of minimum rate of wages or otherwise, but it is a question of dispute whether the trainees whose specific terms of appointment were on a consolidated and fixed pay, are entitled to the benefits of wages and allowance accruing out of national wages statement signed in 1995 and effective from 01.01.1992. Accordingly, the opposite party no.1 came to hold that he is not competent to decide the application and the appropriate remedy would be to take recourse to section 33C(2) of I.D. Act. 5. Challenging the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not in dispute that the forty one workmen have worked under the opp. party no.2 Management in different capacity i.e. Senior Operative trainees, Junior Operative trainees and trainees (un-skilled) on different dates in the year 1992 on a consolidated/fixed pay of Rs.1,550/-, Rs,1,415/- and Rs.1,350/- per month respectively. party no.2 Management in different capacity i.e. Senior Operative trainees, Junior Operative trainees and trainees (un-skilled) on different dates in the year 1992 on a consolidated/fixed pay of Rs.1,550/-, Rs,1,415/- and Rs.1,350/- per month respectively. They were then regularized after completion of one year training period and therefore, they are entitled to get wages as per the notification dated 12.07.1994 of the Ministry of Labour, Government of India under Annexure-7 and NJCS agreement of 1995 under Annexure-4. It is further argued that after payment of 10% wages hike as interim relief, it was unjustified on the part of the Management to deduct the wages as a measure of recovery process. It is further submitted that the decision of the opposite party no.1 as per the impugned order advising the workmen to take recourse to section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act is not proper and justified which is liable to be set aside. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kanta Devi Vs. State of Haryana, (1994) Supp2 SCC 508. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the opp. party no.2 Management on the other hand supported the impugned order. He submitted that the letter issued to the trainees specifically indicated that during the training period, they would be paid consolidated stipend per month and after successful completion of training, they would be taken in regular employment. During such training period, they were not eligible for getting their pay revised as regular employees of the company. The notification of the Government of India dated 12.07.1994 and NJCS agreement are not applicable to them. Since the group of workers was paid excess dues due to inadvertent fixation of wages as regular employees, the excess amount was deducted and recovered after re-fixing their wages. He further submitted the opposite party no.1 rightly held that the case does not involve any question of less payment of minimum rate of wages. 7. Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 authorizes the Labour Commissioner to adjudicate the dispute relating to the claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages. He further submitted the opposite party no.1 rightly held that the case does not involve any question of less payment of minimum rate of wages. 7. Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 authorizes the Labour Commissioner to adjudicate the dispute relating to the claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages. After hearing the applicant and the employer and making such inquiry which may be necessary, the Commissioner being satisfied that there has been payment of less than the minimum rates of wages, can direct the employer for payment of amount to the employee the minimum wages payable to him exceed the amount actually paid. Of course, the section does not provide machinery for recovery of arrears of wages independently of any dispute arising from controversy as regards the minimum wage payable. Proceedings under this section can be commenced where a dispute exists as regards the rate of wage payable. Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the other hand is a provision conferring jurisdiction to deal with a dispute relating to a claim for recovery of money due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award, or under the provisions of Chapter VA and Chapter VB of the Industrial Dispute Act. Chapter VA deals with lay off and retrenchment and Chapter VB makes special provisions relating to law of retrenchment and closure in certain establishments. Prima facie, it cannot be said that the claim herein comes under the purview of Chapter VA or VB of the Industrial Disputes Act. This was not a claim based on settlement or award. Even if the claim could have been agitated under Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, so long as there is no exclusion of jurisdiction of the authority under the Minimum Wages Act from entertaining a claim which might also come within the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act or Payment of Wages Act, it cannot be held that the authority under the Minimum Wages Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. In the present case, the grievances of the petitioner workmen is that they were not paid minimum rates of wages for a particular period in spite of the notification under Annexure-7 and NJCS agreement under Annexure-4 rather after payment of minimum rates of wages for some time, the employer recovered a portion of it by way of deduction from their wages. Therefore, we are of the view that there was no lack of jurisdiction with the opposite party no.1 to decide the dispute. 8. From the factual position narrated above, it is not disputed that forty one workmen were appointed under the opposite party no.2 Management as Senior Operative trainees, Junior Operative trainees and trainees (un-skilled) on different dates in the year 1992 on a consolidated/fixed pay of Rs.1,550/-, Rs.1,415/- and Rs.1,350/- per month respectively and they were regularized after completion of one year training period. It is also not in dispute that basing on the notification dated 12.07.1994 of the Ministry of Labour, Government of India under Annexure-4, the wages of the forty one workmen were refixed and payment were made. The contention of learned counsel for the opp. party no.2 Management that during the training period, the employees were not entitled to any other payment than the consolidated pay is not sustainable in the eye of law. In case of Kanta Devi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that under the provision of the Minimum Wages Act, the category of learners has not been included therein. If an industry creates such a category, it will not be permitted to pay less than the minimum for the lowest level employee in that industry, namely, an unskilled workman. The basic idea is to avoid exploitation by the management by creating different category outside the recognized categories of workers in respect of whom minimum wages are fixed under the law. Therefore, there was no justification on the part of the opposite party no.2 Management to deprive the forty one workmen the benefits of wages as per the notification dated 12.07.1994 of the Ministry of Labour, Government of India under Annexure-7 and NJCS agreement of 1995 under Annexure-4 by issuing a circular under Annexure-5. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 Management does not dispute about the deduction being made from the wages of the workmen by way of a recovery process. In case of State of Punjab Vs. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 Management does not dispute about the deduction being made from the wages of the workmen by way of a recovery process. In case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334 , it is held as follows:- "18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover." In view of such ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that the recovery which has been made from the petitioner forty one workmen was not proper and justified and therefore, the entire deducted amount of wages by way of a recovery process should be refunded by the opposite party no.2 Management to the respective workmen within a period of eight weeks from today. 10. 10. Similarly since the forty one workmen who are working in different capacities during the relevant period as Senior Operative trainees, Junior Operative trainees and trainees (un-skilled) and they are entitled to the payment of minimum rate of wages in view of the notification dated 12.07.1994 of the Ministry of Labour, Government of India under Annexure7 and NJCS agreement of 1995 under Annexure-4 and it is stated that less payment to the tune of Rs.3,88,257/- (rupees three lakh eighty-eight thousand two hundred fifty seven) has been made, the opp. party no.2 shall compute their legitimate dues and make necessary payment to the workmen within a period of eight weeks from today. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.