High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. and K. L. Pandey, J.
NAROTTAMDAS HARJIWANDAS - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 334 Of 1962
Decided On : 09/05/1963
MINIMUM WAGES - Fixation - Validity of Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962 - Whether the Act is ultra vires the State Legislature - Whether the Act is a piece of colourable legislation - Whether the Act violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 (1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution - Whether the Act is repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution - Held, the Act is a valid piece of legislation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, manufacturers of Bidis and those carrying on the business of running transport services, challenged the vires of the Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962, and sought a declaration that the Act is invalid, ultra vires and unenforceable.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Act is a valid piece of legislation and dismissed the petitions.
Issues: 1. Whether the Act is ultra vires the State Legislature? 2. Whether the Act is a piece of colourable legislation? 3. Whether the Act violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 (1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution? 4. Whether the Act is repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Act is an independent enactment fixing minimum rates of wages for certain employments without the necessity of following the procedure prescribed by the Central Act, and the State Legislature had the power to make that law under entry 24 of List III, Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. 2. The Act is not a piece of colourable legislation as it does not purport to validate the rates notified on 30th December, 1958, or attempt to fix minimum rates of wages under the Central Act in violation of its provisions. 3. The Act does not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 (1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution as the fixation of minimum wages by itself does not constitute a violation of fundamental rights and the Act provides for safeguards against arbitrary and unreasonable fixation of minimum rates of wages. 4. The Act is not repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution as the fixation of minimum rates of wages in certain employments is not discriminatory.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THIS order will also govern Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 281, 300 and 305, all of 1962.
( 2 ) THE petitioners in these four cases under Article 226 of the Constitution challenge the vires-of the Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and seek a declaration that the Act is invalid, ultra vires and unenforceable and pray that the opponents be restrained by a suitable direction from putting the Act into operation.
( 3 ) TWO of the petitioners are manufacturers of Bidis. The other petitioners carry on the business of running transport services. By notifications Nos. 306 to 309 XVI58, dated the 30th December 1958, issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act), the Government fixed rates of minimum wages for certain employments including Bidi-mak-ing manufactory and public motor transport. The rates of minimum wages set out in the notifications were brought into force from 1st January, 1959. These notifications were struck down by this Court as invalid and inoperative in anand Transport Co. , (Private) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, M. P. No. 150 of 1959, D/- 28-4-1960 (UP ). Corporation of City of Jabalpur v. State of Madhya pradesh, M. P. No. 66 of 1959, D/- 20-7- 1960 (MP) and Narottamdas v. P. B. Gowarikar, 1961 MPLJ 302 : (AIR 1961 Madh Pra 182 ). The notifications having been struck down by this Court, the State Legislature enacted the Minimum Wages (Madhya Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Validation Act ). After the Validation Act came into force, five petitions under Article 226 of the constitution were filed in this Court questioning its validity on various grounds (see Dayalal Meghji and Co. , Firm v. State of M. P. , 1962 MPLJ 849 : (AIR 1962 madh Pra 342) ). The petitioners in those cases, however, concentrated their attack on Section 31-A inserted in the Central Act by the Validation Act, which ran as follows -
"31-A. (i) The rates of minimum wages fixed or revised in respect of employments Nos. 2,3,5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 in Part I of the Schedule to the principal Act, under the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Labour department Notifications Nos. 306 to 309-XVI-58 dated the 30th december, 1958, shall be and shall always be deemed to have been validly fixed or revised and shall be deemed to have come into force on the date mentioned in the said notifications, notwithstanding any judicial decision to the contrary or any defect or irregularity in the constitution of the Advisory Board under Section 7 of the Principal Act read with Section 9 thereof or publication of the notifications in the Gazette or noncompliance with any other requirement of law and shall not be called in question in any Court merely on the ground that there was failure to comply with the provisions of the Principal Act.
(2) The rates of minimum wages fixed or revised in respect of employment specified in Part II of the Schedule to the Principal Act under the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Labour Department notification No. 7758-XVI, dated the 31st December. 1959. shall be and shall always be deemed to have been validly fixed or revised, notwithstanding any defect or irregularity in the constitution of the committee under Section 5 (i) (a) of the Principal Act read with Section 9 thereof, or publication of the notification in the Gazette or noncompliance with any other requirement of law and shall not be called in question in any Court merely on the ground that there was failure to comply with the provisions of the Principal Act: ***"
The petitioners inter alia contended that the Validation Act had not in any way improved the situation and the notifications dated the 30th December, 1958, which were declared to be invalid in 1061 MPLJ 302 : (AIR 1061 Madh Pra 182)and other cases, continued to be null and void that the State Legislature was not competent to amend the Central Act and, therefore, the Validation Act
REFERRED TO : Narottamdas v. P.B. Gowarikar
Dayalal Meghji and Co., Firm v. State of M.P.
, G. Nageswara Rao v. A.P.S.R.T. Corporation
Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. v. State of Ajmer
U. Unichoyi v. State of Kerala
Edward Mills Co., Ltd., Beawar v. State of Ajmer
Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India
State of M.P. v. G.C. Mandawar
Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi v. Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi
Secy. of State v. Hindustan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd.
Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa
Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibia College, Delhi v. State of Delhi
Bhikusa Yamasa Kshatriya v. S.A.T.B. Kamgar Union
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.