Order : (Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.) 1) Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the present case, these writ petitions are clubbed together, heard together and finally decided by this common order. 2) The petitioners have challenged the orders impugned dated 15.12.2023 passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, Labour Court, Durg (CG) in Case Nos. 42/MW ACT/2017 CIVIL; 43/MW ACT/2017; 44/MW ACT/2017 CIVIL CIVIL; 45/MW ACT/2017 CIVIL; 46/MW ACT/2017 and 48/MW ACT/2017 CIVIL, whereby applications moved by the workmen under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 were partly allowed by the said Court and the petitioners were directed to make a payment of difference amount of minimum wages from December, 2015 to June, 2017 within a period of 2 months. 3) Mr. P. R. Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the private respondents of all writ petitions were never appointed by the petitioners. He would further submit that they were deployed by the Parents Teachers Association (for short, the Association) of respective schools on the post of Sweeper/cleaner on different dates. He would contend that the services of the private respondents were terminated by the Association on different dates. He would argue that the private respondents approached the learned Labour Court against the termination of their services & the learned Labour Court allowed the statement of claims and passed an award of reinstatement with 50% back wages. The said order was challenged by the petitioner(s), writ petitions were preferred and the matter was remanded back to the learned Labour Court on 26.06.2008. The learned Labour Court again passed an award of reinstatement with 50% back wages and that award was challenged by filing a batch of writ petitions in the year 2012 and the lead case was WPL No. 35 of 2012. Mr. Patankar would further argue that the Co-ordinate Bench held that the private respondents/workmen were never appointed by SAIL/BSP, and their salary/ wages/remuneration was paid by the parents-teacher association. It was further held that SAIL/BSP may run or control the school and the Parents Teacher association, but there was no direct control or supervision over the workmen who were reporting to the school and not to the management of SAIL/BSP. It was further held that SAIL/BSP may run or control the school and the Parents Teacher association, but there was no direct control or supervision over the workmen who were reporting to the school and not to the management of SAIL/BSP. He would contend that in the present case also, the learned Labour Court under the Minimum Wages Act cannot pass an order for payment of minimum wages to the workmen as there is no such provision in the Act, 1948. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents/workmen would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Patankar and submit that the workmen/private respondents were appointed by Parents-Teacher-Association but the schools were under the control and supervision of BSP/SAIL, therefore, the learned Labour Court rightly passed the order in their favour. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6) The private respondents/workmen moved an application under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 before the learned Labour Court for payment of wages. 7) Section 20 of the Act, 1948 states that a workman who is getting less payment of wages than the minimum rate of wages may approach the authorities for his grievance. 8) In the present case, the private respondents/workmen claimed wages and there was no dispute with regard to the difference between the minimum wages and wages which were being paid to the workmen, therefore, the private respondents on incorrect legal premises approached the learned Labour Court under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 9) The issue in this regard is not rest integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar issue in the matter of Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Chandi lal Saha & ors. ( (1991 LAB I.C. 524) ) in para-17 held as under :- “17. In the present case there was no dispute regarding the rates of wages and it is admitted by the parties that the minimum rates of wages were fixed by the Government of India under the Act. The workmen demanded the minimum wages so fixed and the appellant denied the same to the workmen on extraneous considerations. In the present case there was no dispute regarding the rates of wages and it is admitted by the parties that the minimum rates of wages were fixed by the Government of India under the Act. The workmen demanded the minimum wages so fixed and the appellant denied the same to the workmen on extraneous considerations. Under the circumstances the remedy under Section 20 of the Act was not available to the workmen and the Labour Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .” 10) The Co-Ordinate Bench in WPL No. 5940 of 2008 in the matter of Rayalseema Concrete Sleepers (P) Ltd. v. Authority under Minimum Wages Act & Regional Labour Commissioner and others passed on 02.01.2018 in para 10 held as under:- “10. Subsequently, relying upon both the aforesaid judgments, a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in the case of Sri Binod Kumar Agrawal v. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and Another, 1992 LAB I.C. 1303, has taken a similar stand wherein it has been held that the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act under Section 20 is not empowered to decide the entitlement of the workers except for deciding the minimum wage which would be payable to a worker under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act and for all other claims of a worker the appropriate remedy has been decided to be either under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act or under the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.” 11) In light of the authoritative decision referred to herein above and also taking note of the fact that there is no dispute with regard to the rates of wages, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Labour Court while passing the orders impugned exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act. Accordingly, the orders impugned are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are hereby set-aside leaving open the claim(s) of the private respondent/workers to get their grievances, if any, redressed before the appropriate forum. Accordingly, these writ petitions are hereby allowed . No order as to cost(s). 12) Interim relief, if any, granted earlier, shall stand vacated.