The impugned notification providing for a guaranteed wage for beedi workers in the event of the employer's failure to supply sufficient raw material was held to be within the powers of the State Government under S. 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and the guaranteed wage was deemed to be a form of remuneration falling within the definition of 'wages' under S. 2(h) of the Act.

( 1 ) THESE writ petitions are disposed of by a common order since they relate to a notification issued by the State Government under the provisions of S. 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (in short the Act ).

( 2 ) W. P. No. 20889 of 1982, though not fixed for hearing, was brought up for hearing at the request of the learned counsel, Mr. Holla, for the petitioner therein who has also appeared in some of the connected writ petitions listed for hearing.

( 3 ) THE workmen benefited by the notification were permitted to come on record in these petitions as additional respondents and I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel for the workmen, Mr. M. C. Narasimhan, and the learned Government Advocate.

( 4 ) THE petitioners are owners of beedi factories. They manufacture and sell beedies within the state of Karnataka. Under Annexure-A filed in W. P. s. Nos. 2309 to 2313 of 1982, the government of karnataka,. e. , the 1st respondent therein, issued the impugned notification under clause (b) of sub-s. (1) of S. 3 read with sub-s. (1) of S. 5 of the Act. This was done in supersession of the notification dated 28th March, 1979, in order to revise with effect from 1st january, 1982, for a period of one year the minimum wages for certain classes of employment in beedi industry as indicated in the corresponding entries in the Schedule thereto. Under clause (5) of the notification the Government fixed a sum of Rs. 7. 40 as the minimum wages for thousand beedies rolled and further provided that the workmen employed in the beedi industry should be entitled to get at least Rs. 4 per day as "guaranteed wages" where the employer failed to supply sufficient quantity of raw material including tobacco leaves to roll 800 beedies per day. Clauses (7) of the said notification provided that where no raw material was supplied by the employer to the employee when the latter was willing to work and report for duty or for collecting the raw material, the employee should be entitled to get full guaranteed wages. There are other clauses in the impugned notification but they do not require consideration since the petitioners challenge only these two clauses, viz. , cls. (5) and (7) of the notification which I have reproduced above.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners Messrs. A. G. Holla and Tukaram Pai, challenged the notification on the following grounds : Firstly, cls. (5) and (7) of the notification do not relate to "wages" as defined under the provisions of the Act and, therefore, the impugned notification is beyond the amplitude of the powers delegated to the State Government under S. 3 of the Act. Secondly, in truth and substance, the term "guaranteed wages" under cls. (5) and (7) is lay-off compensation as provided for under Chapters V-A and V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the. D. Act) and payment of lay-off compensation being separately covered by the provisions of the. D. Act, if the workmen of the beedi industry were to have any grievance regarding lay-off, either due to shortage of raw materials or for any other cause, their remedy is to raise an industrial dispute under the. D. Act and seek an adjudication of the dispute by the authorities constituted under the said Act. Thirdly, no power is conferred on the State government under S. 3 of the Act to fix the "guaranteed wages" which would operate as an infraction of the contractual rights of the parties which are recognised under the very definition of the word "wages" in S. 2 (h) of the Act. Fourthly, in any event, the impugned clauses could not be applied to home-workers, since these workmen do not work in the petitioners' factory premises but in their respective homes and, therefore, there is no question of paying any guaranteed wages under the Act to workmen who do not have any fixed hours of work and do not come under the direct supervision of their employers.

( 6 ) IT has to be noted at the outset that the learned counsel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document