Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Kotval and Wagle, JJ.
Appellants: Ramkrishna Ramnath and Anr.
Vs.
Respondent: The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Special Civil Appln. No. 317 of 1962
Decided On: 10.04.1963
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: V.R. Manohar and S.D. Deshpande, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: G.R. Mudholkar, Addl. Govt. Pleader, S.G. Kukday and N.H. Kumbhare, Advs.
MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948 - Fixation of minimum wages - Consultation with Advisory Board - Composition of Advisory Board - Independent persons - Government servants - Whether can be appointed as independent persons - Validity of notification fixing minimum wages - Challenge - Grounds - Compliance with provisions of Act - Consultation with Advisory Board - Validity of constitution of Advisory Board - Appointment of Government servants as independent persons - Whether vitiates notification - Specification of date for consideration of proposals - Adequacy of opportunity to make representations - Fixation of minimum wages for part of State - Validity.
Fact of the Case:
Petition challenging a notification issued under Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, revising the minimum rates of wages in respect of employment in any tobacco (including bidi making) manufactory in the Vidarbha region of the State of Bombay. The notification was challenged on three grounds: (1) that it was issued without compliance with the provisions of Section 5 read with Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Act as to consultation by the State Government with an Advisory Board to be set up; (2) that the notification in the Official Gazette publishing its proposals for the information of the persons likely to be affected by the revision of minimum rates of wages did not comply with Section 5 (b) of the Act but on the other hand stated that the draft proposals will be taken into consideration by the Government of Bombay "on or after the 1st day of March, 1958", which does not afford adequate opportunity to make representations and is not in compliance with law; and (3) that the wage structure as revised by the impugned notification should have been for the entire State and not merely for the Vidarbha area of the State of Bombay as mentioned in the impugned notification.
Finding of the Court:
1. The contention that the impugned notification was issued without compliance with the provisions of Section 5 read with Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Act as to consultation by the State Government with an Advisory Board to be set up was rejected. The Court held that the Advisory Board was duly constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and that the appointment of two Government servants as independent members of the Board did not vitiate the constitution of the Board. 2. The Court also rejected the contention that the notification in the Official Gazette publishing the proposals for the revision of minimum rates of wages did not comply with Section 5 (b) of the Act. The Court held that the notification adequately specified the date for consideration of the proposals and that it afforded sufficient opportunity to the persons likely to be affected to make representations. 3. The Court further held that the fixation of minimum wages for the Vidarbha region only was not in violation of Section 3 (1) of the Act. The Court held that under Section 3 (1) (b) of the Act, the State Government had the power to review and revise the minimum rates of wages for a part of the State.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned notification was issued without compliance with the provisions of Section 5 read with Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as to consultation by the State Government with an Advisory Board to be set up. 2. Whether the notification in the Official Gazette publishing the proposals for the revision of minimum rates of wages complied with Section 5 (b) of the Act. 3. Whether the fixation of minimum wages for the Vidarbha region only was in violation of Section 3 (1) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, regarding the constitution and composition of the Advisory Board and the consultation with the Board by the State Government are mandatory. However, the appointment of Government servants as independent members of the Board does not necessarily vitiate the constitution of the Board. The validity of the Board's constitution depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the nature of the flaw or error pointed out in the composition and constitution of the Board. 2. The notification in the Official Gazette publishing the proposals for the revision of minimum rates of wages must specify a date for consideration of the proposals, which must be not less than two months from the date of the notification. The notification must also provide adequate opportunity to the persons likely to be affected to make representations. 3. Under Section 3 (1) (b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the State Government has the power to review and revise the minimum rates of wages for a part of the State.
Final Decision: The petition challenging the impugned notification was dismissed with costs.
"No. M.W.A. 1557-J. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 5 read with clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of that section of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 til of 1948), and after consulting the Advisory Board and in supersession of the former Government of Madhya Pradesh Labour Department Notification No. 584-451-XXIII, dated the 23rd February 1956, the Government of Bombay hereby revise the minimum rates of wages in respect of the employment in any tobacco (including bidi making) manufactory in the Vidarbha region of the State of Bombay as mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed and directs that this notification shall come into force with effect from 1st July 1958.
Schedule
Subject to the other provisions of this Schedule, the revised minimum rates of wages payable to employees per thousand bidis (when leaves are supplied by the employer) snail be as follows :
Area Revised rate in Rs.
(i) Naepur District 1.69
(ii) Bhandara District 1.62
(iii) Chanda, Akola, Buldhana, Yeotmal,
Amraoti and Wardha District. 1.56
2. For all bidis in which 7 chataks or more cf tobacco mixture is used and for those bidis which are known as Hatnakhum bidis, there shall be an increase of 12 Naye Paise per 1000 bidis in the rates mentioned above in all the areas.
3. it shall be within the discretion of the employer to decide which are chhat bidis or bad bidis, up to 5 per cent, of the bidis, prepared by the employee. If the employer decides that any bidis are chhat or bad the chhat or bad bidis up to 5 per cent, shall be destroyed forthwith by the employee and whatever tobacco is recovered from them shall be retained by the employer. If, however, the employer wants to retain these chhat or bad bidis, he shall pay full wages for the same to the employee.
4. If chhat or bad bidis are more than 5 per cent, but less than 10 per cent, and if there is any dispude between the employer and the employee as to whether the chhat or bad bidis is done properly or not equal number of representatives of the employer and the em- ployees shall inspect (sic.) the chhat is done properly or not. If there is any difference of opinion among the representatives of the two sides, the majority opinion shall prevail. If the opinion is equally divided and the employer wants to retain the chhat bidis, he shall pay wages for chhat, bidis between 5 per cent to 10 per cent at half the rates fixed above. If the employer does not want to retain these bidis, the employee shall destroy them forthwith.
5. The employer shall nominate his representatives, and the employees shall elect their representatives.
6. In the case of chhat above 10 per cent the employee shall be entitled to full wages. It stall however be open to the employer to taki suitable action against the employee if the chhat is more than 10 per cent for 6 continuous working days in a calendar month.
7. The chhat shall be made once In a slay only at any premises within a distance of not more than 2 miles from the premises where bidis are manufactured.
Explanation: For the purposes of this Schedule the expression employer includes his thekeoar, contractor or agent as the case may be."
2. Before we deal with the present challenge to ths notification it is necessary to state a few facts as to its past history in Courts of law. That will tend to show what part of the notification still survives and the nature of the present attack upon it.
3. After the notification was Issued, it first came to be challenged before this
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
