DWARKA PRASAD, J.— In both these appeals, a question about the validity of Minimum Wages (Rajasthan Amendment and Validation) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act) has been raised.

2. M/s Duduwala & Co., Bhilwara and M/s Rajasthan Mineral and Co., Bhilwara filed two separate writ petitions in this Court challenging the validity of the provisions of the Amending Act. The learned single Judge by his orders dated September 24, 1971 declared that the provisions of the Amending Act were ultra vires of the powers of the State Legislature. The main order was passed by the learned single Judge in the case of M/s Duduwala & Co., while in M/s Rajasthan Mineral & Co.s case the learned single Judge observed that the facts and circumstances of that case were identical with those of M/s Duduwala & Co s case and that the order given in Duduwala & Co.s case would also govern and shall be considered as part of the order in M/s Rajasthan Mineral Co.s case.

3. Both the writ petitioners, M/s Duduwala & Co. and M/s Rajasthan Mineral & Co. carried on the business of mica mining in Bhilwara District of the State of Rajasthan and they employed a large number of workmen in the mica mines, which were taken by them on lease from the State Government. By a notification dated July 31, 1965, the State Government prescribed minimum rates of wages for the workmen employed in mica mines in the State of Rajasthan in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by section 3 read with sub-section (2)of section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The writ petitioners and some other leaseholders of mica mines challenged the validity of the aforesaid notification by filing writ petitions in this Court, inter-alia on the ground that the Advisory Board on the basis of whose advice the aforesaid notification was issued by the State Government, was not properly constituted in accordance with the provisions of section 9 of the Minimum Wages Act. This Court, by its decision in the case of Hari Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (1), struck down the notification issued by the State Government on July 31, 1965 and held that the composition of the Advisory Board was not in accordance with the provisions of section 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, inasmuch as the Advisory Board was composed merely of the employers representatives and the employees representatives, but it did not include any independent members, which was envisaged by the provisions of section 9. This Court held in Hari Rams case (1) that the aforesaid notification issued by the State Government suffered from a defect of fundamental nature, and as it was issued on the basis of consultation with an improperly constituted Advisory Board, the same was void.

4. Thereafter, on December 25, 1968, the State Government issued the Minimum Wages (Rajasthan Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1968, which purported to validate the minimum wages prescribed by the State Government by the notification dated July 31, 1965. This Ordinance was later on replaced by an Act of the State Legislature which was reserved for and received the assent of the President of India on April 3, 1969. Amending Act purported to amend the provisions of sec. 9 of the Minium Wages Act, 1948 (Central Act No. 11 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by adding the following explanation thereto :

"Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, an officer of the State Government shall be deemed to be independent; notwithstanding that the State Government is an employer in any scheduled employment."

The Amending Act also purported to remove the defect or irregularity in the constitution of the Advisory Board by inserting after section 9, a new section 9-A in the principal Act, which runs as follows:-

"9- A FINALITY OF ORDERS CONSTITUTING BOARD, COMMITTEE, SUB-COMMITTEE, ETC, - No order of the State Government nominating any person as Chairman or a Member of the Advisory Board or a Committee or Sub-committee shall be called in question in any manner a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document