High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. and K. L. Pandey, J.
FIRM DAYALAL MEGHJI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 177 Of 1961
Decided On : 05/02/1962
MINIMUM WAGES - VALIDATION ACT - CONSTITUTIONALITY - STATE LEGISLATURE'S COMPETENCE - VALIDATION OF INVALID NOTIFICATIONS - POWER OF LEGISLATURE - RETROSPECTIVE LEGISLATION - ARTICLE 226 - JUDICIAL POWER - ARTICLE 19 (1) (G) - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the Minimum Wages (Madhya Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1961, claiming it was unconstitutional and sought a declaration that the Act was invalid and unenforceable. The Act amended the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and validated certain notifications fixing minimum wages that had been struck down by the Court as invalid.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the State Legislature was competent to enact the Minimum Wages (Madhya Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1961, as it dealt with matters falling under entry No. 24 of the Concurrent List. The Court further held that the Validation Act did not directly amend any provision of the principal Act, but only declared how certain provisions of the principal Act shall have effect in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Legislature was competent to enact the Minimum Wages (Madhya Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Validation Act was a valid exercise of legislative power? 3. Whether the Validation Act violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The State Legislature has the power to make laws with respect to matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, including the fixation of minimum wages. 2. The Validation Act was a valid exercise of legislative power as it did not directly amend any provision of the principal Act, but only declared how certain provisions of the principal Act shall have effect in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 3. The Validation Act did not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution as it did not abridge any right of the petitioners.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petitions and restrained the opponents from enforcing Section 31-A or giving effect to the aforesaid notifications in any way.
( 1 ) THIS order will also govern Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 227 242, 243 and 297, all of 1961.
( 2 ) IN these five cases under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners, challenge the vires of the Minimum Wages (Madhya Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Validation Act), and seek a declaration that the said Act is constitutionally invalid, ultra vires and unenforceable, and pray that a suitable direction be issued to the opponents for bearing them from giving effect to the Validation Act in any manner whatsoever.
( 3 ) THE matter arises thus. In the former State of Madhya Pradesh, which comprised the Mahakoshal region of the new State of Madhya Pradesh, the minimum wages for the workers in concerns owned by the petitioners were first fixed in 1951 by notifications issued in 1951. These rates were revised in 1956 and 1957. After the formation of the new State of Madhya Pradesh, the Government constituted under Sections 5 and 6 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), an Advisory Board. The proposals published by the Government for fixation of the rates of minimum wages were considered by the Advisory Board and ultimately the Government published Notifications Nos. 306 to 309 XVI-58 dated the 30th December 1958 bringing into force the rates of minimum wages set out therein as from the 1st January 1959. These notifications were struck down by this Court as invalid and inoperative in Anand Transport Company (Private) Ltd. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, MP No. 150 of 1959 (MP), Corporation of the City of Jabalpur v. State of M. P. , MP No. 66 of 1959 (MP) and Narottamdas v. P. B. Gowarikar, 1961 MP LJ 302 : (AIR 1961 Madh Pra 182 ). It was held in those cases that the notifications' as initially fixing the rates of minimum wages were void and inoperative as the rates of minimum wages had already been fixed and that viewed as notifications of the rates of wages on revision, they were illegal inasmuch as the revision was not in accordance with Section 5 (1) (b) of the principal Act that the notifications about the proposals for fixation of minimum rates were not in compliance with Section 5 (1) (b) as they did not specify any date for the receipt of representations and consequently the notifications settling the rates of minimum wages on the basis of those proposals were unsustainable; and that the notifications wore invalid also on the ground that they gave retrospective operation to the rates of minimum wages fixed by them, as the principal Act did not authorize the issue of a notification with retrospective effect. In the case of Narottamdas, 1961 MP LJ 302 ; (AIR 1951 Madh Pra 182) (supra) it was also held that the Advisory Board constituted by the Government was not validly constituted in conformity with the requirements of section 9 of the principal Act, and consequently a notification fixing minimum rates of wages issued after consultation with such a Board was invalid.
( 4 ) THE notifications having been struck down by this Court, the State Legislature enacted the Minimum Wages (Madhya Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1961. It is styled as "an Act further to amend the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, (No. XI of 1948), in its application to the State of Madhya Pradesh and to validate fixation and revision of minimum wages in certain scheduled employments". This Act amended some sections of the principal Act and also inserted new provisions. The material provisions of the Validation Act are Sections 5 and 20 by which the following two new sections were inserted in the principal Act :
"9a. No order of the State Government nominating any person as the Chairman or a member of the Advisory Board or a Committee or Subcommittee shall be called in question in any manner and no act or proceeding before any Board, Committee or Sub-committee shall be called in question in any manner in any Court of Law on the grounds merely of the existen
Mst. Jadao v. Municipal Committee, Khandwa
Firm Radhakishan Jaikishan v. Municipal Committee, Khandwa, 1940 Nag LJ 638
REFERRED TO : Narottamdas v. P.B. Gowarikar, AIR 1961 Madh Pra 182 Tika Ramji v. State of U.P.
J.K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P.
AI
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.