sustainable. The ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner in case of Chandi Lal Saha (supra) the apex Court considered that the employer has not paid the minimum wages in its entirety on the ground that he provided attendance bonus and also supplied grain to them on concessional rates. In the said case, Supreme Court came to conclusion that there was no specific notification under Section 11(3) of the Act of 1948 by the Government for supplying of commodities at concessional rates. In the aforementioned facts of the case, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was no dispute regarding rate of wages, appellant denied the payment of minimum wages to workmen on extraneous consideration of supplying goods on concessional rates and held that the remedy under Section 20 of the Act of 1948 was not available and the Labour Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 33(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the case of Town Municipal Counsil, Athani (supra) is also on different facts and is not applicable to the facts of present case. In the said case, Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the issue of limitation in filing application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In case of Pabbojan Tea Co. Ltd. (supra) , Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the remedy after passing an order under Section 20 of the Act of 1948.
