Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B.Gajendragadkar, C.J.I., K.C.Das Gupta, K.N.Wanchoo, M.Hidayatullah, N.Rajagopala Ayyangar, JJ.
Narottamdas
Versus
State Of M.P.
Case No. : 221 of 1964
Date of Decision : 4/21/64
Advocates Appeared: Andley S.N. : Narain Rajindar : Nath Rameshwar : Sen B. : Setalvad M.C. : Shroff I.M. : Shukia B.V. : Vohra P.L.
Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962, says that the expression used in this Act shall have the same meaning for the purpose of this Act as defined in the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The definition of expressions used in an Act with reference to other Act is a well known device in legislative practice generally adopted for the sake of brevity. The definition would remain effective even after the other Act with reference to which the definition was given ceases to exist. This fact of defining expression in an Act with reference to some other Act cannot, therefore, have the effect of making this Act dependent on such other Act. [Para 6
(1) Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962 (M.P.) S. 3 - Fixation of rates of minimum wages - rates mentioned found identical with rates mentioned notification which was declared invalid - this does not mean that Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962, is merely a validating Act.
Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962, fixes wages in respect of certain employments at the rates mentioned in the Table appended to the Act. The rates mentioned in the Table are identical with the rates mentioned in the notification dated the 30th December 1958 which was declared invalid by the decision of the High Court. The effect of enactment of S. 3 would, therefore, be the same as if the notification of 1958 had been validated. To say that, however, is not to say that this Act has validated or that even it seeks to validate the 30th December 1958 notification. On the face of it the Legislature is fixing for itself the minimum rates of wages in certain scheduled employments. That is stated in the preamble and is plain from S. 3 itself. The fact that rates mentioned in the Table appended to the Act happened to be the same as rates fixed elsewhere cannot reasonably justify a conclusion that the validation of the old rates was being effected. Independent legislation does not cease to be so, merely because its effect is the same as it would have been if a validating Act had been passed. The contention that this Act was not independent legislation cannot therefore be accepted. [Para 7
(3) Constitution of India - Art 19 (1) (g) and (6) - reasonable restriction - retrospective operation of Act though relevant is not decisive test - S. 3 of Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962 is not unreasonable.
The retrospective operation of legislation ii a relevant circumstance in deciding its reasonable. It is, however, established that this is not necessarily a decisive test; Where after the final judicial verdict is pronounced declaring a notification fixing the minimum rates of wages invalid, the Legislature passes an Act such as the Madhya Pradesh Minimum wages Fixation Act 1962 fixing again the minimum rates of wages and makes its provisions retrospective, it may well cover a long period taken by judicial proceedings in Court find yet it would be inappropriate to hold that because the retrospective operation covers a long period, therefore, the restriction imposed by it is unreasonable. AIR 1963 SC 1667, followed. [Paras 9 and 10]
(4) Constitution of India - Arts. 19 (1) (g), (6), and 20(1) - Effect of Ss. 3 and 4 of Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act (16 of 1962) - No unreasonable restriction is imposed-section do not also contravene Art. 20 (1).
The words "be enforceable" in the concluding portion of S. 3 of Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962, show that while it was intended that new rates of minimum wages will be enforceable against the employer with effect from the 1st January 1959 no date is being prescribed by S. 3 as the date on which it became payable. This is done by S. 4 the provision of which contains a clear statement of the Legislature's intention that it is on the 21st June, 1962 that the rates which had become enforceable under S. 3 with effect from 1st January 1959 became payable. The employer's apprehension that the might be made liable for payment of compensation under S. 20 (3) or to prosecution under S. 22 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as a result of the mere passing of the Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962 is therefore groundless. The contention that S. 3 and S. 4 of the M.P. Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962, impose unreasonable restrictions on the employer's fundamental rights must therefore be rejected. [Paras 14, 16, and 18
Further; as on a proper construction of Ss. 3 and 4, the new rates of wages for the past period become payable not on the 1st January 1959 but on the 21st June 1962, the attack on the validity of the sections on the ground of Art. 20 (1) of the Constitution also fails, 1963 JLJ 917 affirmed. [Para 19
DAS GUPTA, J.:
(1) THIS appeal raises the question of the validity of the Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962 (Act No. 16 of 1962). The appellant is the Manager of a Bidi counting and labelling factory of M/s. Mohanlal Hargovindas, Jabalpur, who are engaged in the trade of purchase and sale of Bidi in the State of Madhya Pradesh and other States of India. In 1951 the State of Madhya Pradesh fixed rates of minimum wages payable to workmen engaged in Bidi making manufactories. This was done in accordance with the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Central Act 11 of 1948). These rates of minimum wagesere revised in the year 1956 by a notification of the Madhya Pradesh government dated the 23/02/1956. New rates of minimum wages for workmen engaged in the Bidi making manufactories were notified by the Madhya Pradesh government by a notification dated the 30/12/1958. The notification directed that these rates would come into force from 1/01/1959. The validity of this notification was however successfully challenged by the present appellant before the Madhya Pradesh High court. To meet the situation the Madhya Pradesh Legislature enacted the Minimum Wages (Madhya Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1961-(Madhya Pradesh Act No. 23 of 1961). Section 31A which was introduced by this Act into the central Act (No. 11 of 1948) provided that the rates of minimum wages fixed or revised under the notification of the 30/12/1958 `shall be and shall always be deemed to have been validly fixed and revised and shall be deemed to have come into force on the date mentioned in the said notification, notwithstanding any judicial decision to the contrary or any defect or irregularity in the constitution of the Advisory Board under s. 7 of the principal Act read with s. 9 thereof or publication of the notification in the Gazette or noncompliance with any other requirement of law and shall not be called in question in any court merely on the ground that there was failure to comply with the provisions of the principal Act.`
(2) THE appellant and some other Bidi manufactories of Madhya Pradesh challenged the validity of this Act before the High court by petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The High court allowed the applications, struck down s. 31A as invalid and restrained the government from enforcing the section and from giving effect to the impugned notification dated the 30/12/1958.
(3) THE High court gave its decision on the 2/05/1962. On the 21/06/1962 the Madhya Pradesh Ordinance No. 4 of 1962 was passed fixing rates of minimum wages retrospectively. The Ordinance was later replaced by an Act, the Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962. On the 5/10/1962, the appellant made an application to the High court of Madhya Pradesh under Art. 226 and Art. 227 of the Constitution challenging the validity of this Act and praying for a declaration that the Act is ultra vires, void and inoperative and a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the State of Madhya Pradesh and the other respondents from giving effect to or enforcing the provisions of the Act. The High court has held that the Act is valid and has disallowed his application. Against that decision the present appeal has been preferred.
(4) THE challenge to the validity of the Act is based on three principal grounds. The first is that in enacting Act No. 16 of 1962 the Madhya Pradesh Legislature was really not exercising its independent legislative power but only validating the notification dated the 30/12/1958 which it was not competent to do. The second ground is that by giving retrospective effect to the rates of wages fixed by this Act the State has put unreasonable restrictions on the appellants fundamental rights under Art. 19(l)(f) & (g) of the Constitution. The last ground on which the Act was challenged as invalid is thatby making provisions of s. 20 and s. 22 of the central Act No. 11 of 1948 applicable to
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
