Inder Dev Dua, J.
1. The municipal committee, Raikot, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Atricles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 23 July 1962 of Sri M. S. Joshi, Senior Subordinate Judge, acting as an authority under the Minimum Wages Act at Ludhiana. The counsel for the petitioner has raised only two points in support of his challenge to the impugned order. In the first instance, he has questioned the decision in regard to overtime wages of three persons, Tarsem Lal, Bharat Chand and Om Parkash, respondents 2 to 4. The second challenge raises the point whether an 'employee ' within the meaning of Section 2(i) read with Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act includes an ex-employee. Only two decided cases on the point have been brought to my notice on behalf of the petitioner and they take contrary views, though they are both by single Judges of the Madras High Court. In Wakefield Estate v. Maruthan Uchi and 31 Ors. (Neelamalai Plantation Workers' Union) 1959 - I L.L.J. 397, Balakrishna Ayyar, J., has taken the view that an employee whose services are terminated is not entitled to invoke the summary machinery provided in Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act after he ceases to be an employee. In Murugan Transports, Cuddalore v. Rathakrishnan (P.) and Ors. 1961- I L.L.J, 283, Ramachandra Ayyar, J., seems to have taken a different view. The learned Judge with regret was unable to agree with the view taken by Balakrishna Ayyar, J., in the case of Wakefleld Estate 1959-I L.L.J. 397 (vide supra). On behalf of the respondents, Sri C.L. Lakhanpal has made a reference to Malabati Tea Estate v. Smt. Budhni Munda and Ors. A.I.R. 1959 Tripura 16, but the reasoning contained in this judgment is also far from conclusive.
2. In the absence of any reported decision of this Court to which my attention has not been drawn and in view of the two conflicting views expressed by the Madras High Court, I think it would serve the ends of justice better if this point is decided by a larger Bench without undue delay. This petition has been pending in this Court since 1962 and it la desirable that the controversy is finally disposed of before vacation. Papers may, therefore, be laid before the Chief Justice for passing suitable orders under Clause (xx) read with proviso (b), Rule 1, High Court Rules and Orders, Vol. V.