Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.A.VAIDIALINGAM, J.
D. M. S. Rao
Versus
State of Kerala
O. P. Nos. 1182, 1206, 1211, 1212 and 1302 of 1959
Decided On : 11-09-1961
The Kerala High Court held that the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, regarding the time within which minimum wages are to be fixed are directory and not mandatory. The Court stated that the object of the Act is to prevent exploitation of labour and to ensure that employees receive minimum wages. The Court further stated that the legislature was aware of the magnitude of work involved in fixing minimum wages and that the time limits were not intended to be strictly enforced. The Court also held that the notifications fixing minimum wages for the timber industry and for shops and establishments (including hotels and restaurants) were valid, even though they were issued more than one year after the notifications adding those employments to the Schedule to the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were owners or proprietors of saw mills, film industry, hotels, and restaurants, challenged the validity of notifications issued by the State Government fixing minimum rates of wages for their respective industries. The petitioners argued that the notifications were invalid because they were issued more than one year after the notifications adding those employments to the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The petitioners also raised various other contentions, including that the capacity of the employers to bear the burden of the proposed minimum wages had not been considered and that the minimum rates of wages had not been fixed by the appropriate Government.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, regarding the time within which minimum wages are to be fixed are directory and not mandatory. The Court stated that the object of the Act is to prevent exploitation of labour and to ensure that employees receive minimum wages. The Court further stated that the legislature was aware of the magnitude of work involved in fixing minimum wages and that the time limits were not intended to be strictly enforced. The Court also held that the notifications fixing minimum wages for the timber industry and for shops and establishments (including hotels and restaurants) were valid, even though they were issued more than one year after the notifications adding those employments to the Schedule to the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, regarding the time within which minimum wages are to be fixed are mandatory or directory? 2. Whether the notifications fixing minimum wages for the timber industry and for shops and establishments (including hotels and restaurants) were valid, even though they were issued more than one year after the notifications adding those employments to the Schedule to the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, regarding the time within which minimum wages are to be fixed are directory and not mandatory. The Court stated that the object of the Act is to prevent exploitation of labour and to ensure that employees receive minimum wages. The Court further stated that the legislature was aware of the magnitude of work involved in fixing minimum wages and that the time limits were not intended to be strictly enforced. The Court also held that the notifications fixing minimum wages for the timber industry and for shops and establishments (including hotels and restaurants) were valid, even though they were issued more than one year after the notifications adding those employments to the Schedule to the Act.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed all of the petitions, except for O.P. 1182/59, which was posted for further hearing on the issue of whether the expression "timber industry" includes "plywood industry".
2. The two main contentions that have been urged and which are common to all the writ petitions are :
(a) in fixing the minimum wages in the industries in question, the capacity of the employers to bear the burden proposed to be imposed has not been considered; and
(b) the minimum rates of wages has not been fixed by the appropriate Government in these cases within one year of the date of the Notification issued by the State Government, adding the particular employment in Part I of the Schedule to the Act.
3. The above writ petition can be broadly divided into four groups, namely, (1) Plywood Industry; (2) Saw Mills; (3) Film Industry; and (4) Hotels and Restaurants.
4. O. P. 1182/59, in which the petitioner is a Plywood Factory, falls under the first group. This petitioner is represented by its learned counsel Shri V.K.K. Menon.
5. The second group of cases is filed by the owners or proprietors of Saw Mills and O. P. Nos. 1206/59, 1211/59, 1212/59, 1302/59 and 51/60 fall under this group. Here again, the petitioners, though different, are represented by their learned counsel Shri V.K.K. Menon.
6. The third group of cases is the one filed by the owners or proprietors of Film Industry. Some of the petitioners are film distributors and the rest are theatres or talkie houses. In this group will fall O. P. Nos. 1593/60, 1596/60, 1597/60, 1601/60, 1604/60, 1605/60, 2/61, 31/61, 61/61 and 95/61. In this group, the petitioners in O. P. Nos. 1593/60 and 2/61 are represented by their learned counsel Shri V.K.K. Menon and in all the other Original Petitions falling in this group, the petitioners therein are represented by their learned counsel Mr. M.I. Joseph.
7. The last or the fourth group is that filed by owners or proprietors of Hotels and Restaurants. In this group will fall O. P. Nos. 102/61, 169, 170, 171/61 and 216/61. The petitioner in O. P. 102/61 is represented by his learned counsel Mr. N.D.P. Nahboodiripad and the petitioners in O. P. Nos. 169, 170 and 171/61 are represented by their learned counsel Shri C.K. Sivasankara Panicker and the petitioner in O. P. No. 216/61 is represented by his learned counsel Mr. M.I. Joseph.
8. The learned Government Pleader is appearing for the State, which is the respondent in all the O. Ps.
9. I may also state that the relevant notifications fixing the minimum wages for the plywood industry and also the saw mills in respect of the writ petitions covered by groups 1 and 2 are the same. Similarly, the notifications fixing minimum rate of wages in respect of the film industry and hotels and restaurants in respect of the writ petitions coming under groups 3 and 4 are the same.
10. The first contention that the capacity of the industry or the employers to bear the burden proposed to be imposed has not been taken into account in fixing the minimum rates of wages in these cases need not detain me long because the position is now concluded against the petitioners by the recent judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court reported in Unichoyi v. State of Kerala, 1961-1 Lab LJ 631 : (AIR 1962 SC 12). In fact, there are certain minor grounds of attack raised in these writ petitions against the validity of the Minimum Wages Act and that an unreasonable restriction on the employers has been placed by the Act and that it is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
All these aspects are also concluded by the decisions of the Supreme Court, which have been adverted to in the decision referred to earlier. The recent decision of the Supreme Court referred to earlier clearly shows that the restrictions impose
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
