(1.) A short but an interesting point of law is involved in these writ petitions and said question being common to all these writ petitions they are taken up together for consideration and disposed off by this common order. Heard, learned Advocates appearing for parties.
(2.) Sri. S.N. Murthy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended as under:
(3.) Per contra, Sri. Jagadeesh Mundaragi, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent would contend that definition of 'appropriate Government' as defined in Sec. 2(b)(i) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, would indicate that Central Government would be the 'appropriate Government' only in relation to such of those employment as described under the Schedule to the Act, which is carried on by the Central Government by itself or such employment which is under the Authority of the Central Government and submits that it has to be so construed only by restricting its interpretation and for all other employment, the 'appropriate Government' would be the State Government as per Sec. 2(b)(ii) of the Act and as such he submits that contentions raised in the writ petition is liable to be rejected. In support of his submission he relies upon the judgment of the Division bench of this Court in Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Odus mutt reported in 1999 (I) LLJ 19 : (1998 Lab IC 3337 (Kar). and seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.