Back
1964 Supreme(Bom) 25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(P.B. Gajendragadkar C.J., K. N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, K.C. Das Gupta and N. Rajagopala Ayyangar JJ.)
NAROTTAMDAS - Appellant
V.
STATE OF M. P. and others - Respondent
Advocates appeared
For appellant - M.C. Setalvad, B.V. Shukla and M/s. Rameshwar Nath, S.N. Andley and P.L. Vora, of Rajinder Narain and Co.
For respondents - B. Sen and I. N. Shroff.
The retrospective effect of legislation is not necessarily an unreasonable restriction on fundamental rights, and the reasonableness of such legislation depends on the circumstances of each case.
Headnote:
MINIMUM WAGES - VALIDITY OF MADHYA PRADESH MINIMUM WAGES FIXATION ACT, 1962 - Retrospective effect of minimum wages - Reasonableness - Restriction on fundamental rights - Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution - Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Bidi factory manager, challenged the validity of the Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962, which retrospectively fixed minimum wages for certain employments from January 1, 1959. The appellant argued that the Act was an unreasonable restriction on his fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution and that it contravened Article 20(1) of the Constitution by making him liable to conviction for offenses committed before the Act came into force.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Act was a valid exercise of the State's legislative power and that it did not impose an unreasonable restriction on the appellant's fundamental rights. The Court found that the Act did not make the new rates of wages payable until June 21, 1962, the date of publication of the Ordinance that was later replaced by the Act. Therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay compensation or prosecution for failing to pay the new rates before that date.
Issues: 1. Whether the Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962 was a valid exercise of the State's legislative power? 2. Whether the Act imposed an unreasonable restriction on the appellant's fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution? 3. Whether the Act contravened Article 20(1) of the Constitution by making the appellant liable to conviction for offenses committed before the Act came into force?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Act was a valid exercise of the State's legislative power because it was not a validating Act but an independent legislation fixing minimum wages for certain employments. 2. The Court held that the Act did not impose an unreasonable restriction on the appellant's fundamental rights because the retrospective effect of the Act was not unreasonable and the appellant had sufficient time to make arrangements for payment of the new rates. 3. The Court held that the Act did not contravene Article 20(1) of the Constitution because the new rates of wages did not become payable until June 21, 1962, the date of publication of the Ordinance that was later replaced by the Act.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the validity of the Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962.
DAS GUPTA J. -This appeal raises the question of the validity of the Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962 (Act No. 16 of 1962):
The appellant is the Manager of Bidi counting and labelling factory of M/s. Mohanlal Hargovindas, Jabalpur, who are engaged in the trade of purchase and sale of Bidi in the State of Madhya Pradesh and other States of India. In 1951 the State .of Madhya Pradesh fixed rates of minimum wages payable to workmen engaged in Bidi making manufactories. This was done in accordance with the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Central Act 11 of 1948). These rates of Minimum Wages were revised in the year 1956 by a notification of the Madhya Pradesh Government dated the 23rd February 1956. New rates of minimum wages for workmen engaged in the Bidi making manufactories were notified by the Madhya Pradesh Government by a notification dated the 30th December, 1958. The notification directed that these rates would come into force from January 1, 1959. The validity of this notification was however successfully challenged by the present appellant before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. To meet the situation the Madhya Pradesh Legislature enacted the Minimum Wages (Madhya Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1961Madhya Pradesh Act (No. 23 of 1961). Section 31 -A which was introduced by this Act into the Central Act (No.).1 of 1948) provided that the rates of Mini• mum Wages fixed or revised under the notification of the 30th December, 1958 "shall be and shall always be deemed to have been validly fixed and revised and shall be deemed to have come into force on the date mentioned in the said notification, notwithstanding any judicial decision to the contrary or any defect or irregularity in the constitution of the Advisory Board under section 7 of the principal Act read with section 109 thereof or publication of the notification in the Gazette or non -compliance with any other requirement of law and shall not be called in question in any Court merely on the ground that there was failure to comply with the provisions of the principal Act."
2. The appellant and some other Bidi manufactories of Madhya Pradesh challenged the validity of this Act before the High Court by petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court allowed the applications, struck down section 31 -A as invalid and restrained the Government from enforcing the section and from giving effect to the impugned notification dated the 30th December, 1958.
3. The High Court gave its decision on the 2nd May, 1962. On the 21st June, 1962 the Madhya Pradesh Ordinance No.4 of 1962 was passed fixing rates of minimum wages retrospectively. The Ordinance was later replaced by an Act, the Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962. On the 5th October, 1962, the appellant made an application to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the validity of this Act and praying for a declaration that the Act is ultra vires, void and inoperative and a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the State of Madhya Pradesh and the other respondent from giving effect to or enforcing the provisions of the Act. The High Court has held that the Act is valid and has disallowed his application. Against the decision the present appeal has been preferred.
4. The challenge to the validity of the Act is based on three principal grounds. The first is that in enacting Act No. 16 of 1962 the Madhya Pradesh Legislature was really not exercising its independent legislative power but only validating the notification dated the 30th December, 1958 which it was not competent to do. The second ground is that by giving retrospective effect to the rates of wages fixed by "this Act the State has put unreasonable restrictions on the appellants fundamental rights under Article 19 (1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution. The last ground on which the Act was challenged as invalid is that by making provisio
