Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
MINISTRY OF LABOUR & REHABILITATION & ANOTHER.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
TIFFIN’S BARYTES ASBESTOS & PAINTS LTD. & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT16/07/1985
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)
KHALID, V. (J)
CITATION:
1985 AIR 1391 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 302
1985 SCC (3) 594 1985 SCALE (2)56
ACT:
Minimum Wages Act 1948, ss. 5(a) (9) and 9 -
Appointment of Committee to advise the Government of
fixation of minimum wages in certain mines - Government
officials and persons not belonging to the concerned mines
appointed as members Government officials, when ’independent
persons’ as contemplated by s. 9. Whether it is their duty
to implement the provisions of the Act and the Government
being not an employer - Employers representatives in the
committee - Whether should be engaged for profit in the
particular employment.
HEADNOTE:
After considering the advice of the Committee,
appointed under ss. 5(1)(a) and 9 of the Minimum Wages Act
1948, the Government of India by a Notification issued under
the Act fixed the minimum rates of wages payable to certain
categories of employees in the scheduled employment in
certain mines. The mine-owners challenged the notification
under Article 226 of the Constitution and the same was
quashed by the High Court on the ground that the Committee
on whose advice the Notification was based was improperly
constituted for two reasons: (1) that the Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central) New Delhi and Director, Labour
Bureau, Simla, were Government employees in the Labour
Department and were, therefore, not truly ’independent’ so
as to be eligible to be appointed to the Committee
constituted under ss.5 and 9 of the Act and (2) that the so-
called representatives of the employers on the Committee
were not representatives of the named mining industries and
were, therefore, ineligible to be appointed to the Committee
to represent the employers of the particular scheduled
employments.
Allowing the appeal of the Union of India,
^
HELD: 1. The Government employees, who are entrusted
with the task of implementing the provisions of the Minimum
Wages Act 1948, cannot, for that reason, be dubbed as
interested and not independent persons. In a case where the
Government itself is not an employer there is no
justification for holding that Government employees become
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
’interested persons’ contemplated by
303
s. 9 of the Act are persons who belong neither to the
category of employers nor to the category of employees and
there is no reason to think that Government employees are
excluded. The term ’independent persons’, is used in the
section in contradistinction to the words ’persons
representing employers and employees in the scheduled
employments’. [305 F-H, 306 A-B]
Narottamdas v. Gowarikar & Ors. [1961] (1) LLJ 442;
Kohinoor Pictures (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [1961]
(2) LLJ 741 and Bansi Lal S. Patel v. State of Andhra
Pradesh [1965] 1 LLJ 28 overruled.
Jaswant Rai v. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1958 Punjab 425
and Digvijaysinghji Salt Works Ltd. v. State of Gujarat AIR
1971 Gujarat 14 approved.
State of Rajasthan v. Hari Ram Nathwani & Ors. [1976]
(1) SCR 641 not applicable.
2. The persons appointed to the Committee to represent
the employers were eligible to be appointed to the
committee. The scheduled employments in the instant case are
employment in Gypsum, Barytes, Bauxite and Manganese mines.
For the purpose of appointing a Committee to represent the
employers in the scheduled employment, it was not necessary
that the persons appointed should be engaged for profit in
the particular employment. It is enough if a nexus exists
between the persons so appointed to represent the employers
in the particular employment and the particular employment
concerned. There was no material before the High Court nor
was the High Court in a position to say that the persons
appointed to the Committee to represent the employers were
entirely unconnected with or ignorant of the particular
employment. It is not understood how by merely looking at
their names and the position occupied by them, the High
Court was able to say that they were incompetent to
represent the employers in the particular employments. The
representatives of the employers consisted of Controller of
the Indian Bureau of Mines, Secretary General of the
Federation of the Indian Mining Industries, President of
Mysore State Mine Owners Association, etc. etc. All these
persons are intimately connected with the mining industry
and it has not been shown that they were unconnected with or
ignorant of the particular scheduled employments in mines.
It is impossible to uphold the view of the High Court. [306
D-H, 306 A-E]
Champak Lal H. Thakkar v. State of Gujarat [1980] (4)
SCC 329 not applicable.
304
3. Notifications fixing minimum ages should not be
lightly interfered with under Article 226 of the
Constitution except on the most substantial grounds. [307 G]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 589 of
1972.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.7.1971 of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 3980 of 1969.
AND
Civil Appeals Nos 541-546 of 1973
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.8.1971 of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. Nos.
1526,1624,3198,3199,3200 & 3210 of 1970.
G. Das, P.P. Singh, R.N.Poddar, for the Appellants in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
C.A. No. 589(N) of 1978.
Respondent No. 1 in person. (not present) in C.A. No.
589(N) of 1972.
R.N. Poddar and Mrs. Indira Sawhney for the Appellants
in C.A. Nos. 541-546 of 1972.
Dr. Anand Prakash, Naunit Lal, Kailash Vasdev and Mrs.
Vinod Arya for the Respondents in C.A. Nos. 541-546 of 1972.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. On October 16, 1968 the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation,
issued a notification, in exercise of their powers under
section 5(1) (a) and 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, appointing
a Committee "to hold enquiries and advise the Central
Government regarding -
(a) the fixation of minimum rates of wages for the first
time under the said Act, and
(b) the revision of minimum rates of wages already fixed by
the Central Government under the said Act,"
in respect of the Employment in Manganese, Gypsum, Berytes
and Bauxite Mines, Shri D.Venkatachalam, Chief Labour
Commissioner
305
(Central), New Delhi and Shri K.K.Bhatia, Director, Labour
Bureau, Simla were appointed as independent members of the
Committee while (i) Shri K.S.Mahaptra, Controller of Indian
Bureau of Mines, Nagpur, (ii) Shri Dev Coomer Singhi, The
Jhagrakhand Collieries Private Ltd., 14/4, Gariaghat Road,
Calcutta-19, (iii) Dr. S.K.Das Gupta, Indian Aluminium Co.
Ltd., 1, Middleton Street, Calcutta-16 (iv) Shri T.R.
Goenka, Honorary Secretary General, Federation of Indian
Mining Industries, 7, N.D.S.E. Part I, New Delhi-3 and (v)
Mr. S.G.A. Naidu, President of Mysore State Mine Owners’
Association, Bangalore, were appointed as representatives of
the employers. Five other gentlemen were appointed as
members of the Committee to represent the employees.
Thereafter, on May 19, 1969, after considering the advice of
the Committee, the Government of India issued a notification
fixing minimum rates of wages payable to certain categories
of employees in the scheduled employment in Barytes,
Bauxite, Manganese and Gypsum Mines. The notification fixing
minimum wages was questioned by several owners of mines in
writ petitions filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
The notification was quashed by the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh on the ground that the Committee on whose advice it
was based was improperly constituted for two reasons : (1)
Shri Venkatachalam and Shri K.K. Bhatia were Government
employees in the Labour Department and were, therefore, not
truly "independent’ so as to be eligible to be appointed to
the Committee constituted under sections 5 and 9 of the
Minimum Wages Act and; (2) The so called representatives of
the employers on the Committee as appointed were not
representatives of the Barytes, Bauxite, Manganese and
Gypsum mining industries and they were therefore ineligible
to be appointed to the Committee to represent the employers
of the particular scheduled employments.
We are afraid, we are unable to subscribe to the view
taken by the High Court. In our opinion, Government
employees, who are entrusted with the task of implementing
the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, cannot, for that
reason, be dubbed as interested and not independent persons.
It may be that in a case where the Government itself is the
employer in the particular scheduled employment, it may be
possible to urge that Government employees are not
independent persons (we express no opinion on that) but in a
case where the Government itself is not an employer, we do
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
not see any justification for holding that Government
employees who are interested in the implementation of the
Minimum Wages Act, for that reason only, become ’interested
persons’ and cease to be independent. The ’independent
persons’ contemplated by s.9 of the Act are persons who
belong neither to the category
306
of employers nor to the category of employees, and there is
no reason to think that Government employees whose task is
merely to implement Parliamentary Legislation made pursuant
to Directive Principles of State Policy and the State’s
social obligations in that direction are excluded. The term
’independent persons’, it must be emphasised, is used in the
section in contra distinction to the words’ persons
representing employers and employees in the scheduled
employments’. We disagree with the view expressed by the
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Narottamdas v. Gowarikar & Ors.
[1961] 1 L.L.J. 442 and Calcutta High Court in Kohinoor
Pictures (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [1961] 2 L.L.J.
741 and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bansi Lal S. Patel
v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1965] 1 L.L.J. 28. We agree with
the view taken by the Punjab High Court in Jaswant Rai v.
State of Punjab A.I.R. 1958 Punjab 425 and the Gujarat High
Court in the Digvijaysingji Salt Works Ltd. v. State of
Gujarat A.I.R. 1971 Gujarat 14. The decision of this Court
in State of Rajasthan v. Hari Ram Nathwani & Ors. [1976] 1
S.C.R. 641 does not assist either party.
There is equally no substance in the other contention
which found favour with the High Court, namely, that the
persons appointed to the Committee to represent the
employers were ineligible to be appointed to the Committee
as they did not represent employers in the particular
scheduled employment. The scheduled employments with which
we are concerned are employment in Gypsum mines, employment
in Barytes mines, employment in Bauxite mines and employment
in manganese mines. It is not explained why the persons
appointed to the Committee to represent the employers are
ineligible to represent employers in the scheduled
employments. The High Court merely says "on a perusal of the
names of the employers’ representatives, we find that none
of them can be said to be the representatives of the Barytes
mines. When the minimum wages of the categories of employees
are to be fixed in respect of Barytes mines, there is no
point in appointing the representatives of other
employments. The Government in its counter has not stated
that any of the employers’ representatives, who have been
nominated to the Committee, are the representatives of the
Barytes mines. The learned counsel appearing for the Central
Government also has not been able to point out whether any
one of those nominees of the Government as employers’
representatives really represent the Barytes mines or has
got expert knowledge of the employers and their working
conditions in the scheduled employments of Barytes mines.
We, therefore, hold that the composition of the Committee is
defective in respect of the nominations of the employers
representatives. This is sufficient to
307
quash the notification which is based upon the advice of
such a defectively and irregularly constituted Committee."
We are afraid that the approach of the High Court was
entirely wrong. For the purpose of appointing the Committee
to represent the employers in a scheduled employment, it was
not necessary that the persons appointed should be engaged
for profit in the particular employment. It is enough if a
nexus exists between the persons so appointed to represent
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
the employers in the particular employment and the
particular employment concerned. For example, it may be
absurd to appoint persons engaged in the newspaper industry
to a Committee to represent employers concerned in the
employment of Barytes mines or Bauxite mines. The case
before us is not one of that nature at all. There was no
material before the High Court nor was the High Court in a
position to say that the persons appointed to the Committee
to represent the employers were entirely unconnected with or
ignorant of the particular employments. We fail to
understand how by merely looking at their names and the
positions occupied by them, the High Court was able to say
that they were incompetent to represent the employers in the
particular employments. The first of them was the Controller
of the Indian Bureau of Mines, another was the Secretary
General of the Federation of Indian Mining Industries and
yet another was the President of the Mysore State Mine
Owners’ Association. All of them are intimately connected
with the mining industry and it has not been shown that they
are unconnected with or ignorant of the particular scheduled
employments in mines. We find it impossible to uphold the
view of the High Court. The decision of this Court in
Champak Lal Thakkar v. State of Gujarat [1980] 4 S.C.C.329,
is of no assistance whatever. In the circumstances we allow
the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court and
dismiss the Writ Petitions filed in the High Court. We also
wish to emphasise that notifications fixing minimum wages
are not to be lightly interfered with under Article 226 of
the Constitution on the ground of some irregularities in the
Constitution of the Committee or in the procedure adopted by
the Committee. It must be remembered that the Committee acts
only as a recommendatory body and the final notification
fixing minimum wages has to be made by the Government.
Notification fixing minimum wages, in a country where wages
are already minimum should not be interfered with under
Article 226 of the Constitution except on the most
substantial of grounds. The legislation is a social welfare
legislation undertaken to further the Directive Principles
of State Policy and action taken pursuant to it cannot be
struck down on mere technicalities.
A.P.J. Appeals allowed.
308