Back
1958 Supreme(Bom) 93
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
VYAS AND TAMBE JJ.
Rambhau Sakharam Nagre, Petitioner
Versus.
D. G. Tatke and others, Respondents.
Special Civil Appln. No. 68 of 1958 (with Special Civil Appln. No. C14 of 1958), D/- 2-7-1958.
Important Points
Subject
Labour and Employment Law - Minimum Wages
Headnote
MINIMUM WAGES ACT - NOTIFICATION - QUASI-JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACT - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - ARBITRARY ACT - JURISDICTION OF AUTHORITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, representing bidi workers, filed applications before the Authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, claiming wages at the revised rate of Rs. 2-2-0 per thousand bidis from 1st September 1956 to 15th December 1956. The Authority held that the workers were not entitled to the revised wages as the exemption from the application of the Act was extended till 31st December 1956. The petitioners challenged the order, contending that the notification withdrawing the exemption was issued arbitrarily and without following the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the notification issued by the State Government under section 26, sub-section (2) of the Minimum Wages Act was an administrative act and not a quasi-judicial act. Therefore, the rules of natural justice were not attracted, and the State Government was not required to follow a particular procedure before issuing the notification. However, the Court found that the notification was issued arbitrarily as the State Government had heard only one party (the employees) before issuing the notification. The Court also held that the Authority had jurisdiction to decide the question of the legality or validity of the notification as the employers had raised the issue in their written statements and led evidence to support their contention.
Issues: 1. Whether the issue of a notification by the State Government under section 26, sub-section (2) of the Minimum Wages Act is a quasi-judicial act or an administrative act? 2. Even if it is an administrative act, could it be challenged as an arbitrary act, if only one party is heard before the act and no opportunity to be heard is given to the other side?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the notification issued by the State Government under section 26, sub-section (2) of the Minimum Wages Act was an administrative act and not a quasi-judicial act. The Court relied on the language of the sub-section, which provides that the Government "may, if for special reasons it thinks so fit, by notification in the official Gazette direct that for such period as it may specify the provisions of this Act or any of them shall not apply to all or any class of employees employed in any scheduled employment or to any locality where there is carried on a scheduled employment." The Court held that this language gave the Government absolute discretion to grant or withdraw the exemption, and that there was no statutory obligation to follow any particular procedure or adopt a particular approach. 2. The Court held that even though the notification was an administrative act, it could be challenged as an arbitrary act if only one party was heard before the act and no opportunity to be heard was given to the other side. The Court relied on the principle laid down in Board of Education v. Rice, 1911 AC 179, which held that it is the duty of everyone who decides anything to give a fair hearing to both sides.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed both applications, holding that the notification withdrawing the exemption was an administrative act and not a quasi-judicial act, and that the Authority had jurisdiction to decide the question of the legality or validity of the notification.
These are applications under Art. 227 of the Constitution wherein the petitioners have prayed for the issue of an appropriate writ to set aside the order of 6th November 1957 of the Authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act. By the said order the Authority held that the workers in certain bidi manufacturing concerns were not entitled to be paid at the revised rate of Rs. 2-2-0 per thousand bidis from 1st September 1956 to 15th December 1956. These applications raise common questions, and the questions are:
1. Is the issue of a notification by the State Government under section 26, sub-section (2) of the Minimum Wages Act a quasi-judicial act or an administrative act:?
2. Even if it be an administrative act, could it be challenged as an arbitrary act, if only one party is heard before the act and no opportunity to be heard is given to the other side?
(2) These questions arise upon the following facts. The petitioner in application No. 68 of 1958 is the President of the Sangamner Akola Bidi Kamgar Union. Petitioner No. 1 in application No. 614 of 1958 is a legal practitioner at Sangamner and petitioner No. 2 is an official of the Sangamner Akola Bidi Mazdoor Sabha. The applicants in application No. 614 of 1958 have been authorised in writing to act on behalf of the bidi workers. These petitioners (the applicants in applications Nos. 68 and 614 of 1958) filed applications before the Authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, contending that they were paid less wages than what they were entitled to under the notification dated the 19th April 1955 issued by the State Government flatter S. 26, sub-section (2) of the Act. The petitioners case is that the Government of the State of Bombay, by a notification issued by them on the 19th April 1955, fixed wages for workers in bidi manufacturing concerns in certain areas at the rate of Rs. 2-2-0 per thousand bidis. By the various notifications, including the notifications dated 80th June 1955 and 28th June 1956, the bidi manufacturers in certain areas were exempted from the application of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. This exemption was extended from time to time till 31st December 1956. The exemption however was withdrawn or cancelled by the Government by a notification dated 22nd August 1956. The cancellation of the exemption was to be effective from 1st September 1956. The petitioners contention is that Consequent upon the withdrawal of the exemption, they became entitled to the wages at the rate of Rs. 2-2-0 per thousand bidis from 1st September 1956 to 31st December 1956. In these applications we are concerned only with the period from 1st September 1956 to 31st December 1956. The petitioners contend that notwithstanding this position, the owners of the bidi manufacturing concerns, who are respondents in these applications, paid wages to them at the rate of Rs.2/- only per thousand bidis so far as the bidi industry at Sangamner was concerned and at the rate of Rs. 1-15-0 only per thousand bidis so far as the bidi industry in the villages within seven miles of Sangamner and Akola was concerned. When this happened, the workers claimed difference between the wages which were due to them under the notification dated 19th April 1955 and the wages that were actually paid to them by the employers and they made applications under S. 20 of the Act before the Authority. The owners of the bidi manufacturing concerns submitted a written statement, wherein they raised contentions regarding the constitutionality of section 3, sub-section (3), clause (a), sub-clause (iv) of the Act and also the constitutionality of the notifications dated 19th April 1955 and 22nd August 1956. The Authority negatived these contentions of the employers, but he substantially upheld one contention of theirs, viz., that the notification issued by the Government of the State of Bombay on the 22nd August 1956 withdrawing the exemption was issued "arbitrarily, dishonestly and in a manner which w
