opinion: NATHANSON, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
  No. 33.
  Argued October 23, 1952.
  Decided November 10, 1952.
  Joseph Kruger argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Alan J. Dimond and Henry Friedman.
  Mozart G. Ratner argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Stern, George J. Bott, David P. Findling, Owsley Vose and Irving M. Herman.
  Mr. Justice Douglas
  delivered the opinion of the Court.
  Respondent, the National Labor Relations Board, issued a complaint against the present bankrupt company alleging unfair labor practices, and, after appropriate proceedings, ordered the bankrupt to pay certain employees back pay which they had lost on account of an unfair labor practice of the bankrupt. Before the order was enforced by the Court of Appeals an involuntary petition had been filed against the company. Thereafter the Court of Appeals entered its decree, enforcing the Board’s order. In due course the Board filed a proof of claim for the back pay which was disallowed by the referee. The District Court set aside the disallowance. 100 F. Supp. 489. The Court of Appeals affirmed (194 F. 2d 248) holding that the Board’s order is a provable claim in bankruptcy, that the Board can liquidate the claim, and that it is entitled to priority as a debt owing to the United States under § 64 (a) (5) of the Act. The petition for certiorari was granted because of a conflict on the question of priority between that decision and Labor Board v. Killoren, 122 F. 2d 609, decided by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
  We think the Board is a creditor as respects the back pay awards, within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act. The Board is the public agent chosen by Congress to enforce the National Labor Relations Act. Amalgamated Workers v. Edison Co., 309 U. S. 261, 269. A back pay order is a reparation order designed to vindicate the public policy of the statute by making the employees whole for losses suffered on account of an unfair labor practice. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board, 313 U. S. 177, 197. Congress has made the Board the only party entitled to enforce the Act. A back pay order is a command to pay an amount owed the Board as agent for the injured employees. The Board is therefore a claimant in the amount of the back pay.
  The claim is provable as. a debt founded upon an “implied” contract within the meaning of § 63 (a) (4) of the Bankruptcy Act. It is an indebtedness arising out of an obligation imposed by statute — an incident fixed by law to the employer-employee relationship. A liability based on quasi-contract is one on an “implied” contract within the meaning of § 63 (a) (4) of the Bankruptcy Act. See Brown v. O’Keefe, 300 U. S. 598, 606-607.
  We do not, however, agree with the lower court that this claim, enforceable by the Board, is a debt due to the United States within the meaning of R. S. § 3466, and therefore entitled to priority under § 64 (a) (5) of the Bankruptcy Act. It does not follow that because the Board is an agency of the United States, any debt owed it is a debt owing the United States within the meaning of R. S. § 3466. The priority granted by that statute was designed “to secure an adequate revenue to sustain the public burthens and discharge the public debts.” See United States v. State Bank, 6 Pet. 29, 35. There is no function here of assuring the public revenue. The beneficiaries of the claims are private persons as was the receiver in American Surety Co. v. Akron Savings Bank, 212 U. S. 557.
  It is true that Bramwell v. U. S. Fidelity Co., 269 U. S. 483, extended the priority to a claim of the United States for Indian moneys. But that case rests on the status of the Indians as wards of the United States (see Bowling v. United States, 233 U. S. 528) and the continuing responsibility which it has for the protection of their interests. See United States v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432, 444; Board of Commissioners v. Seber, 318 U. S. 705. We cannot extend that reasoning so as to give priority to a claim which the United States is collecting for the benefit of a private party. See American Surety Co. v. Akron Savings Bank, supra. The beneficiaries here are not wards of the Federal Government; they are wage claimants who were discriminated against by their employer. The Board, has eliminated the discrimination by the back pay order; and enforcement of its order has been directed by the Court of Appeals. The full sanction of the National Labor Relations Act has therefore been placed behind the order. The Board argues that the interest of the United States in eradicating unfair labor practices is so great that the back pay order should be given the additional sanction of priority in payment. Whether that should be done is a legislative decision. The contest now is no longer between employees and management but between various classes of creditors. The policy of the National Labor Relations Act is fully served by recognizing the claim for back pay as one to be paid from the estate. The question whether it should be paid in preference to other creditors is a question to be answered from the Bankruptcy Act. When Congress came to claims for unpaid wages it did not grant all of them priority. It limited the priority to $600 for each claimant and even then only allowed it as respects wages earned within three months before the date of the commencement of the proceedings. §64 (a)(2). We would depart from that policy if we granted the priority to one class of wage claimants irrespective of the amount of the claim or the time of its accrual. The theme of the Bankruptcy Act is “equality of distribution” (Sampsell v. Imperial Paper Corp., 313 U. S. 215, 219); and if one claimant is to be preferred over others, the purpose should be clear from the statute. We can find in the Bankruptcy Act no warrant for giving these back pay awards any different treatment than other wage claims enjoy.
  The trustee claims that the liquidation of the back pay award should not have been referred to the Board. Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act authorizes the Board, once an unfair labor practice has been found, to require, inter alia, the person who committed it to “take such affirmative action, including reinstatement of employees with or without back pay, as will effectuate the policies of this Act.” The fixing of the back pay is one of the functions confided solely to the Board. At the time an order of the Board is enforced the amount of back pay is often not computed. Once an enforcement order issues the Board must work out the details of the back pay that is due and the reinstatement of employees that has been directed. This may be done by negotiation; or it may have to be done in a proceeding before the Board. The computation of the amount due may not be a simple matter. It may require, in addition to the projection of earnings which the employee would have enjoyed had he not been discharged and the computation of actual interim earnings, the determination whether the employee wilfully incurred losses, whether the back pay period should be terminated because' of offers of reinstatement or the withdrawal of the employee from the labor market, whether the employee received equivalent employment, and the like. See Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board, supra, 190 et seq. Congress made the relation of remedy to policy an administrative matter, subject to limited judicial review, and chose the Board as its agent for the purpose.
  The bankruptcy court normally supervises the liquidation of claims. See Gardner v. New Jersey, 329 U. S. 565, 573. But the rule is not inexorable. A sound discretion may indicate that a particular controversy should be remitted to another tribunal for litigation. See Thompson v. Magnolia Co., 309 U. S. 478, 483. And where the matter in controversy has been entrusted by Congress to an administrative agency, the bankruptcy court normally should stay its hand pending an administrative decision. That was our ruling in Smith v. Hoboken R. Co., 328 U. S. 123, and Thompson v. Texas M. R. Co., 328 U. S. 134, where we directed the reorganization court to await administrative rulings by the Interstate Commerce Commission before adjudicating the controversies before it. Like considerations are relevant here. It is the Board, not the referee in bankruptcy nor the court, that has been entrusted by Congress with authority to determine what measures will remedy the unfair labor practices. We think wise- administration therefore demands that the bankruptcy court accommodate itself to the administrative process and refer to the Board the liquidation of the claim, giving the Board a reasonable time for its administrative determination.
  In summary, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the claim was provable by the Board and that the computation of the amount of the award was properly referred to the Board. But since we disagree with the ruling on the priority of the claim we reverse the judgment and remand the cause for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
  It is so ordered.
  “ ‘Creditor’ shall include anyone who owns a debt, demand, or claim provable in bankruptcy, and may include his duly authorized agent, attorney, or proxy.” 11 U. S. C. § 1 (11).
  “Debts of the bankrupt may be proved and allowed against his estate which are founded upon ... (4) an open account, or a contract express or implied.” § 63 (a) (4); 11 U. S. C. § 103 (a) (4).
instruction: What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.