Hje.H.COURT.OFCH.HATTISGARHAT,^ Single Bench : HON'BLE SHRS H.L. DATTU, C.J. Writ Petlfion of 1SSO Vlshram, S/o G.hasia Kanwar, Aged about 45 years, Occupatlon : Cuitivator, R/o Vii'age Pata, Tahsii : Gharghoda, DJstrict Raigarh (MP) Versus 1. Sub Divisionai Officer (Revenue) Tahsii: Gharghoda, Dlstrict: Raigarh (MP) 2. Karam Singh, S/o Triiochan Kanwar. R/o Viliage Pata, Ha!ka No.39, Tahsii: Gharghoda, District Rasgarh (MP) Present: Mrs. Smita Ghai, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Baiai, Govt. Adv. fcr the State/respondent No.1. ORALORDER (Pass&d on 28m IVIarch, The petitioner is an agriculturist He owns 25 acres of land. He is a native ofvillage Pata, Tahsi! Gharghoda, District Raigarh. (2) The 2 respondent had gone before the 1st respondent requesting him firstiy to fix minimum wages under the Provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short !the Act') and then direct the petitioner to pay the minimum wages for the last ten years. (3) T'ne 1st respondent recorded the deposition ofthe petltioner as weii as the 2nd respondent. in his evidence, the petitioner has categorically stated that he owns agricuitural iand and the 2nd respondent was his 'Kamiya; (empioyee). Nowhere in the evidence, he has stated that he had empSoyed the 2nd respondent as an agricuitural iabourer. in spite of this th.e 1st respondent has come. to the oonclusion that the petitioner had empioyed the 2nd respondent as an agricuiturai labourer and therefore the 2nd respondent is entitted to minlmum wages under the provisions of the Aot and has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 14 856=45 paise to the 2nd respondent, 'oy z his order dated 10-04-1989. Aggrjeved by the sa.id orde.r passed by the 1st respondent, the petjtioner is before me in this writ petition. (4) Smt. Smita GhaJ, learned counse! appearing for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent irvthe writ petjtion was working as househoid iabourer with the petitioner and therefore employment of the 2 respondent is not covered under the provisions of the Act Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner vvould submit that the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is without authority of faw and v^thoutjurisdictjon. (5) Shri Sumesh Bajaj, learned Government Advooate appearing for the State/respondent No.1 wouid submit that the 2nd respondent was working with the petitioner as an agricuiturai iabourer and therefore the 1 respondent had authority of iaw to pass an order in exercise of his pov^er under the provjslons of the Act. In support of his submission, the learned counsei has brought to my notice the notification Issued by the State Government dated 24-11-1976. (6) The questlon that falls for consideration of this Court is whether the 2nd respondent was working as agrtcuitural iabourer with the petitjoner and therefore the provisions of the Act wouid apply. (7) jn the order passed, the 1 respondent in number of piaces has referred to the work that was entrusted to tne 2ncl respondent by the petitioner A conjolnt reading of severai paragraphs of the order passed by the 1 respondent would demonstrate that the 2 respondent was working with the petitioner oniy as household iabourer (8) The next question that wou!d arise tbr consideration of this Court is v^hether the provisions of the Act wouid appiy to a person who was working as househoid iabourer. For deciding thss issue, the provisions of Section 2(g) read with Section 27 and the Scheduie appended to the Act requires to be noticed. Section 2 (g) oftheAct speaks of "scheduled empioyment", means an employment specified in the Schedule, or any process or branch of work forming part of such employment. Section 27 of the Act empowers the State Government to add to either part of the Sohedule any empSoyment in respect 3 of\A/hich It is of opinion that minimum rate ofthe wages shouid be fixed under the Act. (9) A perusa! of the soheduie to the Act wouid nowhere indteate that the emptoyment in the form of household iabourer wouid fai! under the sald Scheduie. Sinoe the empioyment of the 2nd respondent is not covered under the Schsdule, the l^ respondent had no authority of !aw or jurisdiction to pass an order granting reiief to the 2na respondent by directing the petltioner to pay a minimum wage for a period of four years in a sum of Rs. Rs. 14,856=45 paise. (10) in view of the above discussion, in my opinion, the order passed by the 1st respondent requires to be annuiied. Accordingiy the foiiowing Order 1. Tne petition is allowed. 2. The order made by the Sub Divisiona! Officer (Revenue) dated 10-04-1989 issetaside. 3. !n the faots and circumstances of the case, the parties are dlrected te bear their own cost in this petition. Ordered accordingiy. Sd/- Chief Justice