Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an application by N. K. Jain and others on behalf of M/s. Duduwala & Go , Bhilwara (hereinafter called the applicant) under Art. 226 of the Constitution against the Labour Commissioner, Rajasthan and others, and arises in the following circumstances.

2. Messers Duduwala & Co., Bhilwara, carry on mica mining, and manufacture and sale of mica. One of the mines exploited by it is Toonka mine, and naturally workers are employed in this mine. The Labour Inspector, after inspecting the mines, made an application under sec. 20 (2) of the Minimum Wages Act (No. XI) of 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) before the Labour Commissioner in June, 1954. In that application, it was urged that the applicant had not paid wages for Sundays to the workers, and had therefore contravened sec 13 of the Act, read with rule 23 of the Minimum Wages (Central Rules, 1950 (hereinafter called the Rules). The Labour Inspector prayed that the applicant be directed to make payment of the wages which had not been paid to the workmen., and also to pay compensation. The Labour Inspector also prayed that sanction should be granted for prosecuting the applicant under sec. 22 of the Act. Notice was issued to the applicant of this application of the Labour Inspector, and eventually in June, 1955, the Labour Commissioner ordered the payment of wages, but did not allow any compensation. It also appears that sanction to prosecute was not granted.

3. Thereupon, the present application was made to this Court against the order of the Labour Commissioner, and it is contended that the Labour Commissioner was wrong in ordering the applicant to pay the wages for weekly holidays.

4. The grounds on which the application is based are these—

(1) that minimum wage have not been validly fixed, and the notification of 24th of March, 1952, appointing a Committee, and 29th of March, 1952, fixing minimum wages, are invalid inasmuch as the provision of sec. 9 of the Act has not been complied with;

(2) the delegation of powers by the Central Government to the Rajas-than Government under Art. 228 of the Constitution is invalid as Art. 258 has no application to such a case as the fixing of minimum wages is a quasi judicial function;

(3) that the minimum wages fixed are only for mica works and not for mica mines, and mica mines are not included in the meaning of mica works as used in the schedule of the Act. and, therefore, minimum wages could not be fixed for workers in mica mines.

5. The validity of the Act and in particular of secs. 5, 7 and 9 was also raised in the application; but as this point was not raised before us in arguments we need not refer to it.

6. The application has been opposed by the opposite parties. It is unnecessary to set out in detail the grounds of opposition. It is enough to say that the opposite parties contend that the three main points raised on behalf of the applicant have no force, and that the order of the Labour Commissioner is right, and should be maintained. It has also been urged that there is a remedy by way of suit and, therefore, this Court should not interfere in its extraordinary jurisdiction.

7. We shall first consider whether there is any remedy by way of a suit. It is enough to say that we have grave doubts whether the applicant can file any suit at all, against the directions given under sec. 20. Sec. 24 bars suits, and though that section does not specifically bar a suit by an employer, it seems to us that it does bar the employer from agitating the question of payment of wages once the matter has been decided under sec. 20. We are, therefore, of opinion that there is no remedy to the applicant by way of suit, and the application cannot be dismissed on this ground.

8. Then we come to the contention that there can be no delegation by the Central Government of its powers under the Act relating to mines to the State Government under Art. 258 of the Constitution because the fixation of minimum wages is a quasi judicial Act. Art. 258 emp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document