Judges : KUMARA PILLAI,M.S.MENON
Vasudevan and Others - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Case No : O. P. No. 191, 503, 510, 526, 529, 530, 531, 534, 557, 558, 565, 569, 588, 618, 623 of 1958
Decided On : 03/13/1959
Advocates Appeared :
T. C. Raghavan; For Petitioners B. Pocker; K. M. Seethy; P. K. Shamsuddin; For Petitioners N. Sundara Iyer; V. R. Venkitakrishnan; K. Narayanan; For Petitioner T. R. Achutha Warrier; For Petitioners V. K. K. Menon; C. S. Padmanabha Iyer; P. Balagangadhara Menon; For Petitioners T. N. Subramania Iyer; V. G. Bhaskaran Nair; P. Balakrishna Menon; For Petitioners Government Pleader; For Respondents
Minimum Wages Act - Validity of Notification - S.3(1)(a) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - S.5(2) of States Reorganisation Act, 1956 - [S.3(1)(a) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, S.5(2) of States Reorganisation Act, 1956] - The court found that the notification issued by the Government of Kerala was not in compliance with the provisions of S.5(1)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as it did not specify a date for considering the proposals. The court held that the manner of issuing the notification was mandatory and not discretionary, and strict compliance with the provisions of the Act was intended by the legislature. The court concluded that the notification was unsustainable and allowed the petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitions challenged the validity of a notification issued by the Government of Kerala under S.3(1)(a) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, regarding the fixation of minimum rates of wages for employees in Agricultural Operations in the territories referred to in S.5(2) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notification was not in compliance with the provisions of S.5(1)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and that the manner of issuing the notification was mandatory, not discretionary. The court concluded that the notification was unsustainable and allowed the petitions.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the notification under S.3(1)(a) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and whether it complied with the provisions of S.5(1)(b) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the manner of issuing the notification was mandatory, and strict compliance with the provisions of the Act was intended by the legislature. The notification was found to be unsustainable due to non-compliance with the statutory provisions.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions, declaring the notification unsustainable, without any order as to costs.
1. These petitions were heard together. They challenge the validity of a notification of the Government of Kerala dated 26-2-1958 under S.3 (1) (a) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Central Act XI of 1948). That notification was published in the Kerala Gazette on 4-3-1958 and (omitting the schedule thereto) reads as follows:
"In exercise of the powers conferred by clause [a] of sub-section ] of S.3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Central Act XI of 1948) Government are hereby pleased to fix the minimum rates of wages payable to the employees in Agricultural Operations in the territories referred to in S.5 [2] of the States Reorganisation Act. 1956 [Central Act XXXVII of 1956] as Malabar District, the same having been previously published as required by clause [b] of sub-section [1] of S.5 of the said Act.
This notification shall come into force with effect from the date of this notification."
2. The territories which constitute the Malabar District in the State of Kerala under S.5 (2) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, are the territories comprised in the old Malabar District of the Madras State, excluding the islands of Laccadives and Minicoy and the Kasargod Taluk of the South Kanara District.
3. Sub-section (1) of S.5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 provides:
"In fixing the minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled employment for the first time under this Act or in revising minimum rates of wages so fixed, the appropriate Government shall either -
(a) appoint as many committees and sub-committees as it considers necessary to hold enquiries and advise it in respect of such fixation or revision as the case may be, or
(b) by notification in the Official Gazette, publish its proposals for the information of persons likely to be affected thereby and specify a date, not less than two months from the date Of the notification, on which the proposals will be taken into consideration."
and sub-section (2) (omitting the proviso thereto):
"After considering the advice of the committee or committees appointed under clause (a) of sub-section [1], or as the case may be, all representations received by it before the date specified in the notification under clause [b] of that sub-section, the appropriate Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix, or, as the case may be, revise the minimum rates of wages in respect of each scheduled employment, and unless such notification otherwise provides, it shall come into force on the expiry of three months from the date of its issue."
4. The method adopted by the Government before issuing the notification dated 26-2-1958 was not to appoint committees and sub-committees under sub-section (1) (a) of S.5 but to publish a notification under sub-section (1) (b) in the Kerala Gazette dated 24-12-1957. The notification is dated 17-12-1957 and (omitting the schedule thereto) reads as follows:
"The following proposal regarding minimum wages which the Government of Kerala proposed to fix in exercise of the powers conferred by clause [a] of sub-section (1) of S.3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Central Act XI of 1948) as payable to the employees engaged in employment in Agriculture in the territories referred to in S.5 (2) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Central Act XXXVII of 1956) as Malabar District, is hereby published for the information of all persons likely to be affected thereby as required by clause [b] of sub-section [1] of S.5 of the said Minimum Wages Act.
Notice is given that the proposal will be taken into consideration after two months from the date of publication of this notification and that any representation that may be received from any person with respect to the said proposal before the expiry of the above period will be considered by the Government."
5. The first contention urged before us on behalf of the petitioners is that this notification is not in consonance with S.5 (1) (b) of the Act as it does not specify the date on which the proposals will be
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.