IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.
Karnataka Small Scale Industries Association and Ors - Appellant
Versus
The Secretary Labour Department, Government of Karnataka Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore and Ors - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 39940-39948 of 2010, 63629-63630, 61347-61374, 63892 of 2016, 24764, 31380, 40568, 8388-8417, 5169-5183, 5659-5719, 9211, 10733-10736, 6047, 13678, 8211-8212, 17121-17123, 13679, 13676, 12203-12394, 13840-13851, 44640-44644, 19740-19762, 24098-24105, 25800-25812, 17341-17366, 23394, 26050-26081, 13688-13704, 19567-19570, 19575-19583, 19589-19594, 19584-19588, 17301-17340, 16925 of 2017, 11336-11338, 11453, 11926-11972, 10469-10471, 11452, 11921-11925, 11811-11818, 10133-10137, 10713-10715, 14417-14425, 8653-8657, 10177-10181, 10482-10483, 10961-10963, 11647, 11863, 12232, 12450-12456, 12457-12463, 13052-13054, 13221-13230, 13495-13505, 14230, 15918-15928, 14232, 15850-15856, 14233, 15857-15917, 14290, 14646-14648, 15167, 15181, 15282-15284, 15288-15293, 15285-15287, 15598, 15599, 15600, 16267, 16345, 16365, 16829-16870, 17155-17172, 17311-17312, 17368, 17369, 17437-17438, 17439-17444, 17548-17551, 17800, 17806-17819, 17936, 18538, 17938, 18539-18543, 18113, 18167-18239, 18301, 18463-18471, 18457-18461, 18473-18478, 18482-18510, 18455-18456, 18514, 18655-18670, 18821-18832, 29284, 23354, 23727, 24108-24111, 24140-24141, 24305-24307, 24865-24870, 25370-25372, 25373-25390, 25391-25456, 25762, 25809, 26681, 27111-27112, 29475, 27113-27116, 28470, 31125-31145, 30596, 23658-23662, 35936, 38897-38899, 35937, 40538-40541, 35938, 39449-39450, 35939, 39791-39812, 35940, 38884-38896, 36760, 39477-39480, 40943, 42890-42905, 41120, 9162, 9240-9243, 30330-30335, 33067-33068, 33836-33841, 40309-40310, 28473, 31148-31155, 33842-33863, 28472, 37051-37061, 10569, 10570-572, 10717-10720, 18621, 39357-39403, 27921-27925, 24389-24390, 50699-50701, 50705, 52886, 52887-52888, 50569-50589, 49468-49472, 50702-50703, 40550, 40937 of 2018, 6218, 4237, 4635-4977, 7613 of 2019 (LMW)
Decided On : 29-03-2019
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 21 & 23 - Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Section, 3 r/w Section, 5(1)(b) - General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 21 - Quash - payment of Minimum Wages - Case may be provisions of Minimum Wages Act Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts on reference by appropriate Govt provisions of Industrial Disputes Act when there is an industrial dispute actual or apprehended as considered Case - However when there is no industrial dispute/difference minimum wages for employees of industrial sectors concerned have got to be fixed by appropriate Government on recommendation of Advisory Boards Committees appointed by it provisions of Act appropriate Governments generally accept unanimous recommendations of Advisory Boards by notifying wage values –Held, Trade Union should be heard in such matters may be ideally true but it not mandate of law especially when fixing/revising minimum wages is held to be a legislative/quasi legislative exercise secondly Minimum Wage Notifications vest a right in indeterminate classes of employees thousands in number and scattered all over State therefore hearing all or any of them is not feasible circumstances that culminated into issuance of impugned notifications do not raise any presumption as to lack of bonafide or like either - Minimum Wage Notifications vest a right in indeterminate classes of employees thousands in number and scattered all over State therefore hearing all or any of them is not feasible circumstances that culminated into issuance of impugned notifications do not raise any presumption as to lack of bonafide or like either - Welfare State like ours being guardian of working classes should not allow lobby of Capital to exploit Labour by dillydallying tactics and that benefit of revision lost by Labour by virtue of withdrawal of notifications should be made good by making appropriate provision in judgment there is lot of force and fairness in this submission too however counsel appearing for employers take exception to allegation of "dillydallying tactics" stating that both Capital and Labour should go hand in hand one cannot sustain without other Nation would prosper if both of them as equal partners co-operate with each other in producing goods and services for benefit of society they assure that they would fully cooperate in contemplated revision of Minimum Wages - This is an appreciable gesture from side of employers Minimum Wage Notifications and one Draft Notification are disposed off without interference however a Writ of Mandamus issues to official respondents to accomplish fixation/revision of minimum wages in respect of subject sectors of employment within an outer limit of six months by issuing Minimum Wages Notifications with retrospective effect from respective dates from which minimum wages would have become payable had impugned withdrawal notifications were not issued – Petition disposed
ORDER :
DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.
1. In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners have called in question the Minimum Wage Notifications issued on various dates by the first respondent-State Government under the provisions of sec. 3 r/w sec. 5(1)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter "MW Act"), whereby the minimum wages have been revised for the benefit of employees in as many as 37 sectors of employment in the State, of which three Final and one Draft Notifications have been excluded later, by way of withdrawal, the same having been challenged by the Labour/Trade Unions, separately.
2. A brief historical back ground of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948:
(a) After the World War - I (1914-1919), even the staunch believers of Capitalism and Laissez Faire stopped considering that labour is a commodity or a factor of production, whose wages should be determined only by the market forces of demand and supply. The International Labour Organization in its Eleventh Session of 26th Convention held at Geneva in May, 1928 had passed Resolutions, inter alia, recommending for the creation of Minimum Wage Fixing Machinery and laying down broad guidelines for fixing the minimum wages with the participation of the labour and the Capital, inter alia, subject to the rider that what is fixed as a minimum wage cannot be contracted out.
(b) A relevant portion of the above Resolution reads as under:
"if the labourers are to be secured the enjoyment of minimum wages and they are to be protected against exploitation by their employers, it is absolutely necessary that restrain should be imposed upon their freedom of contract and such restrictions cannot in any sense be said to be unreasonable. On the other hand, the employers cannot be heard to complain if they are compelled to pay minimum wages to their labourers even though their labourers on the account of their poverty and helplessness are willing to work on lesser wages."
(c) India being a Member of the International Labour Organization had an obligation to evolve a legislative policy to give effect, inter alia, to the recommendations of the aforesaid Geneva Convention. However, arguably, because of the Great Depression of 1930s' followed by the World War - II (1939-1945), the Colonial Rulers had turned deaf ears to the cry of the ILO. Some ineffective and selective mechanism was introduced under the Defence of India Rules promulgated under the Defence of India Act, 1939. It is only in April 1946, on the recommendation of the Eighth Standing Labour Committee, the British India introduced a Bill. The Industries Conference of December, 1947 had passed a Resolution popularly known as "Industrial Truce Resolution" making certain recommendations concerning the subject matter of the Bill. However, after the advent of Freedom, the Parliament has passed the said Bill that became the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, w.e.f. 15th March, 1948. The Central Government being the delegate under the Act has promulgated the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 and similarly, the Government of Karnataka also being a delegate, has promulgated the Karnataka Minimum Wages Rules, 1958.
3. THE SALIENT FEATURES OF THE ACT:
In India, the minimum wages are fixed by two agencies, viz, (i) the Central Govt. or State Govt. as the case may be, under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and (ii) the Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts on reference by the appropriate Govt. under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, when there is an industrial dispute actual or apprehended (as considered in Sri Bhajarang Jute Mills Case, AIR 1970 SC 878. However, when there is no industrial dispute/difference, the minimum wages for the employees of the industrial sectors concerned, have got to be fixed by the appropriate Government on the recommendation of the Advisory Boards Committees appointed by it, under the provisions of the Act. The appropriate Governments generally accept the unanimous recommendations of the Advisory Boards by notifying
Andhra Pradesh Hotel's Association Vs. Government of AP (2002) 3 LLJ 623
Association of Planters of Kerala Vs. State
A.K. Gopalan Vs. State of Madras
Arbuda Bhavan Tea Shop Vs. State of Maharashtra (1992) I LLJ 807 Bom
Bhastiram Narayan Das Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Bar namely Aspinwal and Company Vs. State of Karnataka 1985 ILR(Kar) 688
E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation
Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation Vs. Tiffin's Barytes Asbestos and Paints Ltd. (1985) 3 SCC 594
N.K. Jain Vs. Labour Commissioner AIR 1957 RAJ 35
Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India
Standard Vacuum Refining Company of India Vs/Its Workmen
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights Vs. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1473
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.