The Court emphasized that the composition of the Committee, the consideration of representations, and the uniform fixation of minimum wages were in compliance with the Minimum Wages Act and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

For Respondents

Petitioners, three in number, challenge the validity of Ext.P1 notification issued by Government fixing minimum rates of wages payable to employees engaged m Cinema Theatres within the State. Petitioner's land 2 are owners of Cinema Theatres and 3rd person Association of exhibitors of Cinematograph films, either owned by them Proprietory or partnership concerns or on hire. It is averred that the third petitioner has a membership of 1370 out of total 1400 Cinema Theatres in Kerala.

2. Government of Kerala as per notification dated 21-7-1984 issued under S.27 of the Minimum Wages Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", added Employment °n Cinema Theatres" to the Schedule to the Act. Thereafter they appointed a Committee o hold enquiries to advise it in respect of the fixation of minimum rates o wages m respect of the employees in the Theatres. Committee was constituted by 11 persons representing the employees, 11 persons representing the employers and 3jndependen members one among the independent members was appointed Chapman. The Committee submitted report dated 22-10-1987. On the basis of that report, Government rates of wages payable to the employees engaged in Cinema Theatres m the State. This notification is challenged on three counts:

(i) Composition of the Committee was against S.9 of the Act in so far as it did not contain equal number of persons to represent the employers as those nominated to represent t'r; employees;

(ii) Government did not consider any of the representations submitted by the owners of the Cinema Theatres before issuing Exhibit P1 notification;

iii) All Cinema theatres situated within the State of Kerala were treated similarly and this has resulted in violation of the principles contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

I shall proceed to deal with these contentions in detail.

3 S.5 read with S.9 of the Act enables the Government to appoint a Committee to hold enquiries for advising it for the fixation of minimum rates of wages m respect of a scheduled employment. The Committee shall consist of persons to be nominated by the Government representing the employers and employees in the scheduled employment, who shall be equal in number. In the instant case, the Committee was constituted by nominating 11 representatives of the employees and 11 others to represent the employers. It is the petitioners' case that out of those nominated to represent the employers, 1st and 2nd were Managers of Theatres and 4th was representing the association of film distributors. It is their further case that persons ranked 5 and 8 had no connection whatsoever with the Cinema business. Lastly it was contended that the 3rd, 7th, 9th, 10th and 11th nominees were individual proprietors of Cinema Theatres and hence they cannot be considered as persons interested in the industry. On this basis, it was argued that the composition of the Committee was not in terms with the provisions of the Act.

4. It is true that Nos.1 and 2 among the nominees representing the management were Managers of Theatres. Managers are appointed by the owners of Theatres to conduct the day-to-day business in the Theatre. They are directly involved in running the Cinema Theatres. They are the representatives of the employers present at the theatre. They are intimately connected with the problems of the employees. Such persons can never be considered as having no nexus with the conduct of business in the Theatre. In the film industry, film distributors play a vital role. Distributors and their representatives can never be considered as persons representing the interest of the employees in Cinema Theatres. They are intimately connected with the employers, who are running the Theatres. Their nomination can never be considered to be against the interest of the employers. Individual owners of Theatres are interested in safeguarding the rights of the owners of Cinema Theatres. I do not find my way to describe them as persons not