Back
1982 Supreme(Kar) 283
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
A.S. Bopanna, J.
Karnataka Planters Association —Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnataka —Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 11521 of 1982 etc.
Decided on : 15-10-1982
The constitution of the Board, consultation between the Board and the Government, and the validity of the impugned notifications under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
Headnote:
The Karnataka High Court quashed the impugned notifications fixing/revising the minimum rates of wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (the Act) and issued directions to the Government for the proper implementation of the Act. The Court held that the constitution of the Board was vitiated by the presence of the Minister as the Chairman, which robbed the independent character of the official members. The Court also held that there was no consultation between the Board and the Government as required under the proviso to Section 5(1)(b) of the Act. The Court further held that the impugned notifications were bad for not providing for adjustment of dearness allowance downwards.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, various industries and their associations, challenged the impugned notifications issued by the Government of Karnataka fixing/revising the minimum rates of wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (the Act). The petitioners contended that the notifications were bad in law and violative of various provisions of the Act and the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the constitution of the Board was vitiated by the presence of the Minister as the Chairman, which robbed the independent character of the official members. The Court also held that there was no consultation between the Board and the Government as required under the proviso to Section 5(1)(b) of the Act. The Court further held that the impugned notifications were bad for not providing for adjustment of dearness allowance downwards.
Issues: 1. Whether the constitution of the Board was vitiated by the presence of the Minister as the Chairman? 2. Whether there was consultation between the Board and the Government as required under the proviso to Section 5(1)(b) of the Act? 3. Whether the impugned notifications were bad for not providing for adjustment of dearness allowance downwards?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the presence of the Minister as the Chairman of the Board robbed the independent character of the official members, as the Minister had the power to control the proceedings of the Board and determine the methods of voting. The Court also held that the Minister's dual role as Chairman of the Board and Minister for Labour, who took the final decision for the impugned notifications, violated the principle of consultation under the proviso to Section 5(1)(b) of the Act. 2. The Court held that there was no consultation between the Board and the Government as required under the proviso to Section 5(1)(b) of the Act, as the Board did not consider the representations of the affected parties and the Government did not consider the advice of the Board before issuing the impugned notifications. 3. The Court held that the impugned notifications were bad for not providing for adjustment of dearness allowance downwards, as Section 4(1) of the Act contemplates an alteration or change in general without confining that alteration or change to only one direction, namely increase.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned notifications fixing/revising the minimum rates of wages under the Act and issued directions to the Government for the proper implementation of the Act. The Court directed the Government to constitute a new Advisory Board consisting of independent members, consider the representations of the affected parties, consult the Board as required under the proviso to Section 5(1)(b) of the Act, and take expeditious action to publish the final notifications on or before 31st December 1982. The Court also directed the petitioners to continue to pay 56% of the wages enhanced by the impugned notifications till the publication of the final notifications.
Bopanna, J.—On the pleadings of the parties and the competing contentions of their Learned Counsel, the following general points arise for consideration in these batches of petitions :
(1) Did the draft notifications dated 30-7-1981 containing the proposals of the Government for revising/fixing the minimum wages and published in the Government Gazette dated 6-8-1981, comply with the requirements of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act ? If not, are those notifications bad in law and vitiate the final notifications impugned in these proceedings ?
(2) Was there a consideration by the Government of all the representations against the proposals for fixation/revision of minimum wages as required under Section 5(2) of the Act ?
(3) If there was no consideration of those representations, what is the effect of such non-consideration ?
(4) Was there any consultation between the Government and the Board as required under the proviso to Section 5(1)(b) of the Act (in short 'the proviso') ?
(5) Was the Board properly constituted in that the Minister for the Government holding the Labour Portfolio himself was an independent member as also the Chairman of the Board ?
(6) What is the proper construction of the proviso ? Is consultation between the Government and the Board mandatory or directory ?
(7) If there was consultation, was it only illusory and not effective, meaningful and purpose-oriented as contemplated under the proviso ?
(8) Inasmuch as some of the impugned notifications revised the minimum rates of wages fixed earlier, were the petitioners entitled to be heard in person on their representations made under Section 5(2) of the Act ? Was such hearing necessary in the case of first fixation of minimum wages ?
(9) The Government being the owner of the Government Printing Press, Rubber Plantations, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, could the Government officials and the Minister fill the bill as independent members of the Board and satisfy the requirements of Section 9 of the Act ?
(10) Did the impugned notifications fix a fair wage and not a minimum wage and therefore it was bad in law ?
(11) Can the impugned notifications supersede the settlements under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which were in force in certain industries and impose additional obligations on the employers ?
(12) Were they made for extraneous considerations and not for the bona fide purpose of fixing/revising the minimum wages ?
(13) Are the notifications bad because they provided for dearness allowance exceeding 100 per cent neutralisation in certain industries ?
(14) Are the notifications violative of Section 4(1) of the Act since there is no provision for adjustment of dearness allowance but only for upward revision thereof 7
(15) Did the participation of the Minister as Chairman-cum-Official of the Board rob the independent status of the other independent members who were Government servants and some of whom were directly under his departmental control ?
(16) Is there any justification for the grievance that the impugned notifications in respect of the petitioners' industries were vitiated by bias as only the claim of the opposition party for revision/fixation of minimum wages was considered, as evidenced by the unchallenged report of the statement made by the Minister for Labour in 'The Hindu' dated 24-2-1982 ?
(17) Are the impugned notifications bad in law as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution ?
(18) While revising the minimum wages, is there any scope for incorporation of variable dearness allowance in the impugned notification ?
(19) Since the draft notification did not contain the proposal for dearness allowance in certain industries, was it competent for the Government to introduce dearness allowance in the final notification in regard to those industries ?
(20) Are the factors like reduction in employment, closure of industries and consumer resistance relevant and if so, were they taken into consideration
