Rajasthan High Court
Modi (Actg.), C.J. & Kan Singh, J.
Hari Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondents
Civil Writ No.406 of 1966
Decided On : January 25, 1967
2. The material facts leading up to these writ applications may shortly be stated as follows. To start with, the respondent State had fixed minimum wages for workmen employed in mica mines throughout Rajasthan by a notification dated the 29th March, 1952. This notification came to be challenged before this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 58 of 1955 (N.K. Jain vs. The Labour Commissioner, Rajasthan), and by its decision dated the 27th August, 1956, which is reported as ILR (1957) VII Rajasthan 74, that notification was held to be invalid inasmuch as the committee which was appointed by the State under sec. 5(1) of the Act to advise it in the matter of the fixation of the rates in question had not been lawfully composed in accordance with certain essential requirements of sec. 9 of the Act, and consequently the notification of 1952 was struck down. I shall have occasion to refer to this case at some length hereafter.
3. Thereafter, by another notification, dated the 24th April,f 1959, the State again fixed the minimum rate of wages for workmen employed in mica mines in this State (See Ex. 1). In the Schedule given under this notification, only one category of worker was specified, namely, an "adult worker", and his minimum wages were fixed at Rs. 1/5/- per day exclusive of weekly days of rest. Then again, by a further notification dated the 31st July, 1965 (Ex, 3) which is now impugned before us, the State Government revised the rates for the class of workmen with which we are concerned throughout the State of Rajasthan under 26 different categories as specified in the Schedule given in the said notification.
4. As a preliminary step to this last-mentioned notification, the State Govt. had on the 17th May, 1962, in the first instance appointed a Committee consisting I of five members, (and it is entirely unnecessary to say anything about its composition as it came to be changed before it started working) to inquire into the conditions prevailing in the employment in mica mines and to advise the State Government in the matter of revision of the rates of wages fixed by the last-mentioned notification dated the 24th April, 1959. This notification was, however, superseded by another notification dated the 26th November, 1952, by which although the total membership was maintained as before, its personnel was almost wholly changed except with respect to one of its members who happened to be a representative of the employers, and it was ordered to consist of two representatives of the employers as well as two of the employees, and Professor K. S. Mathur, Head of Department of Economics Degree Classes, Government College, Ajmer, was appointed an independent member and its chairman and a serious dispute has been raised befor
(4) Ramkrishna Ramnath vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1964 Bom 51)
(12) M/s. Bhikusa vs. Sangamner A.T.B.K. Union (AIR 1960 Bom 299)
(10) Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. State of Ajmer (AIR 1955 SC 33)
(11) Edward Mills Co. vs. State of Ajmer (AIR 1955 SC 25)
(7) Bansilal vs. State of A.P. (AIR 1965 A.P. 128)
(2) Narottamdas vs. P.B. Gowarikar (AIR 1961 MP 182)
(6) Bengal M.P.E. Union vs. Kohinoor Pictures (AIR 1964 Cal. 519)
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.