SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1961 Supreme(Ker) 203

C.A.VAIDIALINGAM
D. M. S. Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent


Advocates:
In O.P. Nos. 1182, 1211, 1212, 1302 of 1959 and O.P. Nos. 51, 1593 of 1960 and O.P. No. 2 of 1961 :V.K.K. Menon, C.S. Padmanabha Iyer and M. Ramachandran, for Petitioners; Govt. Pleader, for Respondents
In O.P. 1206 of 1959 :M/s V.K.K. Menon, C.S. Padmanabha Iyer and M. Ramachandran, for Petitioners; Government Pleader, for Respondent No. 1; M/s T.C.N. Menon and N. Gangadhara Menon, for Respondent No. 2.
In O.P. Nos. 1596, 1597, 1601, 1604, 1605 of 1960 and O.P. Nos. 31, 61, 95, 216 of 1961; M.I. Joseph, for Petitioner; Government Pleader, for Respondent.
In O.P. No. 102 of 1961 :N.D.P. Nambudripad and M. Viswanatha Menon, for Petitioner; Govt. Pleader, for Respondent.
In O.P. Nos. 169, 170, 171 of 1961 :C.K. Sivasankara Panicker and P.G. Parameswara Panicker, for Petitioners; Government Pleader, for Respondent..

ORDER :- In these batch of 21 writ petitions, the validity of the notifications issued by the State Government fixing minimum rates of wages for the industries in question under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as amended by subsequent enactments, is challenged. There are also certain minor contentions raised in some of the writ petitions, which will be considered at the appropriate stage.

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
























































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top