THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26512 of 1999 ORDER: Respondent Nos.1 to 12 were engaged as casual labour in Muthanaveedu Nursery maintained by Horticulture Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and Deputy Commissioner of Labour (for short ‘the Authority’) initiated proceedings against the petitioners under that Act. The basis was that respondent Nos.1 to 12 approached him by filing P.W.M.P.No.2 of 1999 alleging that they were not being paid the wages prescribed by the District Collector for the N.M.Rs. and that unauthorised deductions were made. The petitioners entered appearance and opposed the case. It was stated that respondent Nos.1 to 12 were paid the wages according to the rates stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 22.10.1998, issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’). The Authority proceeded with the matter and through order, dated 26.11.1999, held that respondent Nos.1 to 12 are entitled to be paid wages stipulated by the District Collector for the N.M.Rs. The said order is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. The Authority initiated proceedings against the petitioners under the Payment of Wages Act. This is not a case where respondent Nos.1 to 12 complained non-payment of wages at all. Their grievance was that the wages were not being paid on par with the N.M.Rs. engaged in the District. Reference was made to a Circular issued by the District Collector prescribing the wages for the N.M.Rs. In case there did not exist any specific notification covering the employment in Horticulture Department, it would certainly have been competent for the Authority to take the wages prescribed by the District Collector for the N.M.Rs. into account. It is not in dispute that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 22.10.1998, prescribing the minimum wages for the persons engaged in Horticulture Establishment. There is no dispute that respondent Nos.1 to 12 were paid wages according to that. Things would have been different altogether, had the District Collector issued a Memo stipulating the wages over and above those mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.56 specifically for the persons engaged in the Horticulture Establishment. When a notification issued under the Act covering the employment of respondent Nos.1 to 12 exists, there was no justification for the Authority to insist on payment of wages payable to the N.M.Rs. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:15.07.2010 kdl