Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
15th November, 1961:
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SARKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
1. Bidi, Bidi Leaves and Tobacco Merchants Association, Gondia and others (in C. A. No. 415 of 60);
2. State of Bombay (Now Maharashtra) (In C. As. Nos. 416 and 418 of 60) and
3. Haji Latif Ghani Kachhi and others (In C. A. No. 417 of 60), Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Bombay (now Maharashtra) and others (In C. A. Nos. 415 and 417 of 60);
2. Bidi, Bidi Leaves and Tobacco Merchants Association and others (In C. A. No. 416 of 60) and
3. Haji Latif Ghani Kachhi and others (In C. A. No. 418 of 60), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 415 to 418 of 1960.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (Mr. S. P. Varma, Advocate and M/s. S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co. with him), for Appellants (In C. A. No. 415 of 60) and Respondents (Nos. 1 to 3 in C. A. No. 416 of 60); M/s. A. S. Bobde and Ganpat Raj, Advocates, for Appellants (In C. A. No. 417 of 60) and Respondents (In C. A. No. 418 of 60); M/s. H. R. Khanna and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, for Appellant (In C. As. Nos. 416 and 418 of 60) and Respondent No. 1 (In C. As. Nos. 415 and 417 of 60); Mr. A. G. Ratnaparkhi, Advocate for Respondent No. 3 (In C. A. No. 415 of 60).
MINIMUM WAGES ACT - Fixation of minimum rates of wages - Power of appropriate Government - Scope and extent - Implied powers - Doctrine of - Applicability - Notification prescribing minimum rates of wages for bidi workers - Clauses dealing with the rejection of bidis as 'chhat' bidis and payment therefor - Validity.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, bidi manufacturers in Vidarbha region, challenged the validity of a notification issued by the State of Bombay under S. 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, fixing minimum rates of wages for bidi workers. The notification consisted of seven clauses. Clauses 1 to 5 and the first part of clause 6 were held to be intra vires, whereas the latter part of clause 6 and clause 7 as well as the explanation added to it were held to be ultra vires by the High Court. The petitioners challenged the validity of the clauses held to be intra vires by the High Court, while the State challenged the validity of the clauses held to be ultra vires.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that clauses 3 to 7 of the notification, which dealt with the rejection of bidis as 'chhat' bidis and payment therefor, were outside the purview of the powers conferred on the respondent by S. 5 of the Act and must therefore be declared to be ultra vires. The Court held that the definition of the term 'wages' in S. 2(h) of the Act postulates the binding character of the other norms of the contract and brings within the purview of the Act only one term, which relates to wages and no other. Therefore, the Court held that the other terms of the contract could not be affected by the notification under the Act under the doctrine of implied powers.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned clauses of the notification were within the powers conferred on the respondent by the relevant provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948? 2. Whether the doctrine of implied powers could be invoked to validate the impugned clauses in the notification?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned clauses of the notification, which dealt with the rejection of bidis as 'chhat' bidis and payment therefor, were outside the purview of the powers conferred on the respondent by the relevant provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 2. The Court held that the doctrine of implied powers could not be invoked to validate the impugned clauses in the notification because the definition of the term 'wages' in S. 2(h) of the Act postulates the binding character of the other norms of the contract and brings within the purview of the Act only one term, which relates to wages and no other.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petitioners' appeals and dismissed the State's appeals. The Court held that clauses 3 to 7 of the notification were ultra vires and that clauses 1 and 2 were valid. The Court directed the respondent to pay the costs of the petitioners in the appeals.
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : These four appeals consist of two sets of cross appeals each and they arise from two petitions filed in the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur challenging the validity of the notification dated June 11, 1958, issued by the State of Bombay, now represented by the State of Maharashtra, under S. 5 of the Minimum wages Act 11 of 1948 (hereafter called the Act). The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 205 of 1951 are the Bidi, Bidi Leaves and Tobacco Merchants Association, Gondia and two others whereas the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 214 of 1958 are Haji Latif Ghani Kachhi and five others. The impugned notification consists of seven clauses. By the majority decision of the High Court cls. 1 to 5 and the first part of cl. 6 are held to be intra vires, whereas the latter part of cl. 6 and cl. 7 as well as the explanation added to it are held to be ultra vires. The first part of the finding is challenged by the petitioners in the two writ petitions by their Civil Appeals. Nos. 415 and 417 respectively, while the latter part of the finding is challenged by the State of Maharashtra in its Civil Appeals Nos. 416 and 418 respectively. Thus, Civil Appeals Nos. 415 and 416 are cross appeals and Civil Appeals Nos. 417 and 418 are cross appeals. These appeals have been brought to this Court with a certificate granted by the High Court under Art. 132(1) of the Constitution. As will presently appear the only point which calls for our decision in these appeals is one relating to the validity of the impugned notification; and so the certificate might well have been given under Art. 133(1)(c) and not under Art. 132(1) because the case does not involve a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. For convenience we will refer to the petitioners in the writ petitions as petitioners and the State of Maharashtra as the respondent in these appeals.
2. The petitioners are bidi manufacturers in different parts of the Vidarbha region and they employ a large number of persons for the purpose of making bidis for them. It appears that the Government of the State of Madhya Pradesh within whose jurisdiction Vidarbha was then situated had fixed the minimum rates of wages in respect of employment in tobacco (including bidi making) manufactories by issuing a notification on January 11, 1951. This notification had purported to fix the minimum rates of wages per 1000 bidis by reference to different localities in the State. The rates thus fixed were inclusive of dearness allowance or compensatory cost of living allowance and they varied from place to place as specified in columns 2 to 4 of the notification respectively. An Advisory Board was thereafter constituted by the said State in exercise of the powers conferred on it by S. 7 of the Act. Subsequently, in 1956 the said minimum rates of wages were revised by a notification issued on February 23, 1956. As a result of the State Re-organisation Act 1956 (37 of 1956) the Vidarbha region became part of the State of Bombay. After Vidarbha thus became a part of the State of Bombay the Government of Bombay notified that the Advisory Board appointed by the said Government under S. 7 shall be the Advisory Board for Vidarbha. This notification was issued on November 1, 1956. The Government of Bombay then issued a notification publishing the draft of the notification which was proposed to be issued under S. 5, sub-s. (2) read with cl. (b) of suit-s. (1) of S. 5, and notice was thereby given to all the bidi manufacturers that the said draft would be taken into consideration on or after March 1, 1957. Thereafter the procedure prescribed by S. 5 was followed, an enquiry was held, a report of the Advisory Board was received and finally the impugned notification was issued on June 11, 1958. It is the validity of the several clauses contained in this notification that is challenged before us in the present appeals.
3. In their petitions the petitioner
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
