EDWARD MILLS v.

STATE OF AJMER1

FACTS: On the 17th January, 1952, a committee was appointed to hold enquiries and
advise the Chief Commissioner in regard to the fixation of minimum wages
relating to the textile industry within the State. Ten members were nominated
consisting of four represeiitatives of the employers, four of the employees and two
independent members, one of whom Shri Annigeri was to act as an expert member
of the committee and the other, Dr. Bagchi, as its Chairman. The term of office
of the members was fixed at-six months from the date of the notification ending
on the 16th of July, 1952. The first meeting of the committee was held on the
29th February, 1952. The expert member was present at that meeting and it was
resolved that the minimum wages must not merely provide for the bare
subsistence of life but should be adequate for the maintenance of the efficiency of the
worker. The second meeting was held on the 29th March, 1952, and the third
on the 14th of June, 1952. The expert member was not present at any other
meeting except the first and on the 27th of May, 1952, he wrote a letter to the
Chief Commissioner stating that he was proceeding to Europe on the 3rdd
June, 1952, for a period of three months. He expressed' his willingness to assist
the Chairman in the preparation of the report after he came back from Europe by the
first week of September, next, provided the term of the committee was extended. If
however that was not possible, he requested that his letter might be treated as a letter
of resignation from the membership of the Committee. No action appears to have
been taken on receipt of the letter. The fourth and the fifth meetings of the
committee were held respectively on the 8th and the 15th of July, 1952. On the
20th August, 1952, the the Chairman of the Committee informed the Chief
Commissioner that Shri Annigeri had ceased to be a member of the committee by
reason of his failing to attend three consecutive meetings. He had also desired that
his letter to the Chief Commissioner dated the 27th May, 1952, should be treated as a
letter of resignation. In the circumstances the Chief Commissioner was requested to
fill up this vacancy in the membership. On the very next day, that is to say, on the
21st August, 1952, a notification was issued by which the Chief Commissioner
ordered the extension of the term of the committee up to the 20th of September, 1952,

1 1955 SCR (1) 735

and on the 28th of August, following, another notification was made appointing
Shri Annigeri as a member of the committee. The term of the committee was
extended by a further notification till the 5th of October, 1952. In the meantime a
meeting of the committee was held on the 10th September, 1952, in which Shri
Annigeri was not present. The only resolution passed was, that all relevant papers
might besent to Shri Annigeri as desired by him. It appears that some time after the
14th of September, 1952, the Chairman himself took the papers to Nagpur where Shri
Annigeri was staying and a draft final report was prepared by the Chairman in
consultation with the expert member and both of them signed the report at Nagpur.
The report was placed before the other members on the 4th October, 1952, and
on the 7th of October, following, a notification was issued fixing minimum
rates of wages for the employees in the textile industry in the State of
Ajmer, under the signature of the Secretary to the Chief Commissioner and stating
that these rates should be deemed to be in force from the 1st of September,
1952.

Feeling aggrieved by this notification the three appellants in Appeal No. 138 of
1954 presented an application under article 226 of the Constitution before the
Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer on the 31st October, 1952, praying for a writ
in the nature of mandamus ordering the State of Ajmer not to enforce the same.
ISSUES: firstly, that without a delegation of authority by the President under
article 239 of the Constitution, the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer was not competent
to function as the"appr opriate Government" for purposes of the Minimum Wages
Act. All the steps therefore that were taken by the Chief Commissioner under the
provisions of the Act including the issuing of the final notification on the 7th of
October, 1952, were illegal and ultra vires.

The second contention raised is that the provision of section 27 of the Act is illegal
and ultra vires inasmuch as it amounts to an illegal and unconstitutional delegation of
legislative powers by the Legislature in favour of the "appropriate Government" as
defined in the Act. The third and the last contention is, that the Chief Commissioner
had no authority to extend retrospectively the term of the Advisory Committee
after it expired on the 16th of July, 1952
JUDGMENT AND REASONING: Conditions of labour vary under different
circumstances and from State to State and the expediency of including a particular
trade or industry within the schedule depends upon a variety of facts which are by no
means uniform and which can best be ascertained by the person who is placed
in charge of the administration of a particular State. It is to carry out
effectively the purpose of this enactment that power has been given to the
"appropriate Government" to decide, with reference to local conditions, whether it is
desirable that minimum wages should be fixed in regard to a particular trade or
industry which is not already included in the list. We do not think that in enacting
section 27 the Legislature has in anyway stripped itself of its essential powers or
assigned to the administrative authority anything but an accessory or subordinate
power which was deemed necessary to carry out the purpose and the policy of the
Act. The second contention of Mr. Chatterjee cannot therefore succeed.

The third and the last point raised by Mr. Chatterjee is directed against the notification
of the Chief Com- missioner by which he extended the term of the Advisory
Committee till the 20th of September, 1952. It is argued that the term of the
committee, as originally fixed, expired on the 16th of July, 1952, and on and
from the 17th of July all the members of the committee became functus
officio. The Commissioner therefore was not competent to give a fresh
lease of life to the committee which was already dead. We do not think that there
is much substance in this contention. Rule 3 of the rules framed under section
30 of the Act expressly lays down that the State Government may fix the
term of the committee when it is constituted and may from time to time extend it as
circumstances require. The State Government had therefore a right to extend the term
of the committee in such way as it liked.
State Of Tamil Nadu vs M/S.Sri Renga Apparels2
FACTS: The present batch of petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners to
quash the Government Order in G.O. (2D) No.59, Labour & Employment (J1)
Department dated 10.10.2014 and published in Part-II Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette dated 3.12.2014, whereby revision has been made to the
minimum rates of wages for employment in respect of tailoring trade in export

2 WA 867 of 2015
garments manufacturing industry, hosiery industry, etc. The writ appeal has been filed
by the State against the interim order passed by the learned single Judge.

The petitioners in all these petitions are either belong to export garment industry or
hosiery industry, where tailoring activity is being carried on. They are challenging the
revision of minimum wages fixed in respect of tailoring activity in the above
industries.
ISSUES: Whether the Government Order as arbitrary, unconstitutional and in
violation of principles of natural justice?

JUDGMENT AND REASONING: On the contention of the petitioners that the

revision of wages by 64% is not sustainable has to be rejected even at the threshold. It
is to be mentioned here that the last of the revision of minimum wages had taken
place in the year 2004. It is not in dispute that the revision of minimum wages has to
be done once in 5 years. For one or other reason, due to filing of writ petitions and
order of stay granted by this Court, the revision of wage was not carried on from 2004
and only after the last batch of writ petitions having been dismissed during 2012, the
Government had restarted the work of revision of minimum wages by consulting the
advisory board. Therefore, since 2004 till 2012, for 8 years, the wage has not been
revised and in that context if revision had been made at the rate of 8% every year,
based on the data available with the Government and in consultation with the
Advisory Board by following the procedure prescribed under Section 5 (1) (b) of the
Act, the same cannot be said to be unreasonable or unjustified.

Dr. Harisingh Gour University v S Saraf3

FACTS: The appellant vide order dated 17.7.2009 directed that all the daily wage and
muster roll employees, whose work was of the same nature as of regular employee,
shall be given the minimum of the regular pay scale applicable to the posts on which
he was discharging duties along with 1/30th of the Dearness Allowance. The order
also clarified that such employees will not be entitled for any other allowance. But
later, on the recommendation dated 10.4.2010 of the Finance Committee that the work
of University be done by outsourcing and rules of University Grants Commission be

3 Writ Appeal No.1140/2011

followed and also Collector rate be paid, the Executive Council of the appellant by
resolution dated 24.10.2010 withdrew the order dated 17.7.2009.
Aggrieved, the respondents challenged the recommendation dated 10.4.2010 of the
Finance Committee and resolution dated 24.10.2010 of the Executive Council in their
respective writ petitions.
ISSUE: The learned Single Judge could not have issued the direction for payment of
the minimum of the regular pay scale because the respondents are admittedly daily
wage employees.
JUDGMENT AND RESONING: So far no Statute has been made as provided under
section 27 of the Act 2009 affecting the pay and allowances of the respondents. The
resolution dated 24.10.2010 cannot be construed as a Statute. The appellant has not
shown that the resolution has been approved by the visitor who, as provided in section
8 of the Act 2009, is the President of India. The approval by the visitor of any new
Statute is a mandatory condition under section 27. In the present situation, we do not
find it necessary to go into the question whether the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 or
the principle of "equal pay for equal work" will apply.

Chandra Bhavan Boarding and Lodging, Bangalore vs. The State of Mysore and Anr.
(29.09.1969 - SC) : MANU/SC/0308/1969

FACTS: The above mentioned appeal by certificate as well as the petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution raise identical questions of law for decision. In both
these proceedings the validity of the notification issued by the Government of Mysore
in S.O. 1038 dated the 1st June 1967 fixing the minimum wages of different classes of
employees in residential hotels and eating houses in the State of Mysore, under the
provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act)
is called into question. The Civil Appeal arises from the decision of the High Court of
Mysore rejecting the various contentions advanced on behalf of some of the hotel
owners questioning the validity of the impugned notification. The writ petition is filed
by the All Mysore Hotels Association, Bangalore and the Madras Woodlands Hotel
raising those very contentions.
ISSUES:

1) Section 5(1) of the Act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as it confers

unguided and uncontrolled discretion on the Government to follow either of the
alternative procedures prescribed in Clause (a) and (b) of that Sub-section.

(2) The provisions of the Act are unconstitutional as they confer arbitrary power
without guidance to the Central and the State Governments concerned to fix minimum
rates of wages and thus interfere with the freedom of trade guaranteed under Article
19(1)(g) of our Constitution.

(3) It was incumbent on the Government to appoint a committee under Section 5(1)(a)
of the Act to inquire into and advise it in the matter of fixing minimum wages. Its
failure to do so has resulted in fixing minimum wages arbitrarily.

(4) Fixing of minimum wages under the provisions of the Act being a quasi-judicial
act, the Government's failure to observe the principles of natural justice has vitiated
its decision.

(5) It was not permissible for the Government to fix different minimum wages in
different industries.

(6) The division of the State into zones and fixing different rates of minimum wages
for different zones was impermissible under the Act.

(7) The division of the State into zones was not done on any rational basis and,

(8) The valuation of the food to be provided to the employees is unreasonably low and
the same was done without the authority of law.

JUDGMENT AND REASONING: Our attention was not drawn to any material on
record to show that the minimum wages fixed are basically wrong. Prima facie they
appear to be reasonable. We are not convinced that the rates prescribed would
adversely affect the industry of even a small unit therein. If they do, then the industry
or the unit as the case may be has no right to exist. Freedom of trade does not mean
freedom to exploit. The provisions of the Constitution are not erected as the barriers
to progress. They provide a plan for orderly progress towards the social order
contemplated by the preamble to the Constitution. They do not permit any kind of
slavery, social, economic or political.

It is a fallacy to think that under our Constitution there are only rights and no duties.
While rights conferred under Part III are fundamental, the directives given under Part
IV are fundamental in the governance of the country. We see no conflict on the whole
between the provisions contained in Part III and Part IV. They are complementary and
supplementary to each other.
The provisions of Part IV enable the legislatures and the Government to impose
various duties on the citizens. The provisions therein are deliberately made elastic
because the duties to be imposed on the citizens depend on the extent to which the
directive principles are implemented. The mandate of the Constitution is to build a
welfare society in which justice social, economical and political shall inform all
institutions of our national life. The hopes and aspirations aroused by the Constitution
will be belied if the minimum needs of the lowest of our citizens are not met.
It was urged on behalf of the hotel owners that the power conferred to fix the
minimum wage on the appropriate Government under Section 5(1) is a quasi-judicial
power and in exercising that power, it was incumbent on the appropriate Government
to observe the principles of natural justice. The Government having failed to observe
those principles, the fixation of wages made is liable to be struck down. It is
unnecessary for our present purpose to go into the question whether the power given
under the Act to fix minimum wages is a quasi-judicial power or an administrative
power. G As observed by this Court in A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India [1970] 1 S.
C.457 the dividing the between an administrative power and quasi-judicial power is
quite thin and is being gradually obliterated. It is further observed therein that
principles of natural justice apply to the exercise of the administrative powers as well.
But those principles are not embodied rules. What particular rule of natural justice, if
any, should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and
circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held
and the Constitution of the tribunal or body of persons appointed for the purpose.
Taking into consideration the provisions of the Act, the objective behind the Act, the
purposes intended to be achieved and the high authority on whom the power is
conferred, we have no doubt that the procedure adopted was adequate and effective.
We have equally no doubt that reasonable opportunity had been given to all the
concerned parties to represent their case. We are unable to agree that the impugned
order is vitiated because of the Government's failure to constitute a committee under
Section 5(1)(a). We see no substance in the contention that the Government is not
competent to enhance the rate of wages mentioned in the proposals published. If it has
power to reduce those rates, as desired by the employers, it necessarily follows that it
has power to enhance them. There is no merit in the contention that the Government
must go on publishing proposals after proposals until a stage is reached where no
change whatsoever is necessary to be made in the last proposal made.

Payment of Wages Inspector vs. Surajmal Mehta and Anr. (03.12.1968 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0309/1968

FACTS: On the licence of the Barnagar Electric Supply and Industrial Company, of
which respondent 1 was at all material times the managing director, having been
revoked by the Madhya Pradesh Government and the company's undertaking having
been taken over by the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, respondent 1 served
notices on the company's employees that their services would no longer be required as
from October 1, 1962, Thereupon the appellant on behalf of 20 employees of the
company filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Act to recover from
respondent 1 wages for the notice month and retrenchment compensation amounting
to Rs. 12,853.60P. payable to the employees under Section 25FF of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. On respondent 1 contesting the claim as also the jurisdiction of
the Authority, the Authority raised certain preliminary issues, namely : (1) whether
the said application was maintainable in view of the revocation of the company's
licence, (2) whether the Authority had jurisdiction to determine the liability of
respondent 1 for retrenchment compensation before the amount thereof was
ascertained under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and (3) whether in
view of the services of the workmen not having been interrupted by the said transfer
and the terms and conditions of service applicable to them after the said transfer being
not in any way less favourable than before and the said Board as the new employer
being liable after the transfer for compensation in the event of retrenchment, the
employees were entitled to claim any compensation. By his order dated May 21, 1963
the Authority held against respondent 1 on the question of jurisdiction. Respondent 1
thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court and Division Bench of the High
Court held that Section 15 of the Act did not apply and that the proper forum for such
an application was a Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act. This appeal challenges the correctness of this order.

ISSUES: Whether compensation payable under Section 25FF of the Industrial

Disputes Act can fall under the amended definition in Section 2(vi)(d) of the Act and
can be called 'wages'?
JUDGMENT AND REASONING : It must, however, be remembered that though
such compensation falls within the definition of wages, cases may arise where it
would not be a simple question of recovery of wages. In the present case, for instance,
the defence taken by respondent 1 was that he was not the person responsible for
payment of compensation and that the right of the workmen was defeated by reason
of the proviso to Section 25FF being, according to him, applicable inasmuch as these
workmen were continued in the employment by the said Board, the new employer,
that therefore there had been no interruption in their employment, that the terms and
conditions of service given to them by the new employer were in no way less
favourable than those they had when the company was the employer, and that the new
employer was responsible for payment of compensation if any retrenchment took
place in future. The question, therefore, is whether in view of the limited jurisdiction
of the Authority under Section 15(2) of the Act, it was intended to deal with such
questions, which in some cases might well raise complicated problems of both fact
and law.
While considering the scope of jurisdiction of the Authority under Section 15 of the
Act it is relevant to bear in mind the fact that the right to compensation is conferred
by the Industrial Disputes Act which itself provides a special tribunal for trying cases
of individual workmen to whom compensation payable under Chapter VA has not
been paid. Section 33C of that Act provides both a forum and the procedure for
computing both monetary as well as non-monetary benefits in terms of money and
further provides machinery for recovery of such claims.
Andhra Pradesh Hotels Association vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.
(17.07.2002 - APHC) : MANU/AP/0567/2002
FACTS: The petitioner is the A.P. Hotels Association represented by its Secretary, G.
V. Krishniah. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued draft notification in G.O.
Rt. No. 599 Labour, Employment, Training and Factories (Lab-II) Department dated
23-3-1999 published in the A.P. Gazette on 25-3-1999 proposing revision of
minimum wages in the hotel industry under Section 5(2) of the Minimum Wages Act,
1948 (for short, the Act). The previous revision of minimum wages had taken place
under G.O Ms. No. 89 dated 15-5-1991. The present revision was proposed by taking
the cost of living index at 309 points (base year 1982 =100 series). It was also
proposed that for any rise in cost of price index over the 309 points the cost of living
allowance shall be paid as shown in the G.O. It was shown that Rs. 3/- shall be the
cost of living allowance in respect of basic wage of Rs. 500/- whenever there is an
increase of a point in the cost of living index above 309 points. It was also proposed
that for the basic wage above Rs. 500/- the cost of living allowance shall be calculated
at the rate of Rs. 0-25 ps. for every Rs. 50/- of the basic wage subject to an upper limit
of Rs. 10-50 ps. for the basic wage of Rs. 2000/-. The employees were categorized
into six categories, the post of Manager carrying a basic wage of Rs. 2376/-, Category
A drawing basic wage of Rs. 1901/-, Category B drawing Rs. 1663/- Category C
drawing Rs. 1496/-, Category D drawing Rs. 1426/- and Category E drawing Rs.
1320/-.

The petitioner-association submitted its objections on 21-7-1999 in writing to the

Government raising various aspects to be considered by the Advisory Board before
finalizing the wage revision. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, after having
consulted the State Minimum Wages Advisory Board issued G.O.Ms. No. 53 Labour,
Employment, Training and Factories (Lab-II) Department, dated 17-10-2000 in
exercise of the powers conferred by Subsection (1) of Section 3 and Sub-section (2)
of Section 5 of the Act revising the minimum wages in the Employment in Hotels,
Restaurants and Eating Houses, Being aggrieved by the said Government Order, the
petitioner-association filed the writ petition.

ISSUES: Whether neutralization of the VDA exceeded 100%?

JUDGMENT AND REASONING: The Constitution of India, inter alia, has solemnly
resolved to secure economic justice to the people of India, and with that end in view
has laid down certain Directive Principles to be observed in the governance of the
country. The object of the Act is to provide social justice to the workmen employed in
the scheduled employment by prescribing minimum rates of wages. The minimum
rates of wages should be fixed in respect of scheduled employments keeping in twin
objects of providing sustenance and maintenance of the worker and his family and
preserving his efficiency as a worker in view. Though the Directive Principles of
State Policy enshrined in the Constitution are not enforceable by any Court, it is the
duty of the Slate to apply these principles in its governance which includes making
laws also. According to Articles 38, 39(e), 42 and 43 of the Constitution, the State
shall direct its policy towards securing, that the citizens have the right to an adequate
means to livelihood, that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women
and that the health and strength of workers are not abused. The preamble of the
Constitution coupled with the Directive Principles constitutes the conscience of the
Constitution; in other words, the constitutional policy of the Republic of India. If the
labourers are to be secured in the enjoyment of minimum wages and they are to be
protected against exploitation by their employers, it is absolutely necessary that
restraint should be imposed on the freedom of contract and such restrictions cannot, in
any sense, be said to be unreasonable. The Act, it is held, is not repugnant to the
provisions of the Constitution vis-a-vis the fundamental right to carry on any
business. The restrictions imposed under the Act are reasonable and in public interest.
The employers cannot be heard to complain if they are compelled to pay minimum
wages, even though the labourers, on account of their poverty and helplessness or
disabilities, are willing to work on lesser wages. According to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights everyone as a member of society has the right to social
security and is entitled to realization, through national efforts and international co-
operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of
economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for one's dignity and the free
development of one's personality. Likewise everyone has the right to a standard of
living, adequate for the health and well-being of oneself, including food, clothing,
housing and medical care and necessary social services and the right to security in the
event of Unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of
livelihood or circumstances beyond one's control.

Secunderabad Club vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (05.04.1996 - APHC) :

MANU/AP/0235/1996

FACTS: These writ appeals arise out of the common judgment of the single Judge
passed in a batch of writ petition. The appellants herein field the writ petitions
challenging various final notifications issued in exercise of power confirmed under
Section 3(1) and 5(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') by the
Government of Andhra Pradesh revising the minimum rates of wages payable to
various categories of employees in different establishments as specified in Part-I of
the Schedule.

ISSUES: Section 5 of the Act is ultra vires the Constitution; an opportunity of bearing
was not given to the employers before issuance of final notification under Sec. 5(2) of
the Act, which is mandatory; constitution of the Advisory Board under Section 7 of
the Act is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act and the
Advisory Board failed to discharge its duties.

JUDGMENT AND REASONING: It is to be noticed that the Minimum Wages Act,

1948 is a pre-constitutional enactment. The object of the Act is to provide social
justice to the workmen employed in the scheduled employment by prescribing
minimum rates of wages. The minimum rates of wages should be fixed in respect of
scheduled employments keeping the twin objects of providing sustenance and
maintenance of the worker and his family and preserving his efficiency as a worker in
view. Though the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in the Constitution
are not enforceable by any court, but the State shall apply these principles in making
laws in the governance of the country. According to Articles 38, 39(e), 42 and 43 of
the Constitution, the State shall direct its policy towards securing that the citizens
have the right to an adequate means to livelihood, that the is equal pay for equal work
for both men and women and that the health and strength of workers are not abused.
Article 42 provides that the State shall make provision for securing just and humane
conditions of work and for maternity relief. The State shall endeavour to secure by
suitable legislation to all workers a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent
standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities.
The preamble of the Constitution coupled with the directive principles constitutes the
conscience of the Constitution. When the provisions of a pre-constitutional legislation
are being enforced after Constitution, the provisions of the said Act have to be
interpreted in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution. One of the aims of
the directive principles of State Policy is to is ameliorate the socio-economic
conditions of the working class. At sometimes, the directive principles may violate
some fundamental rights, then they have to be read as reasonable restrictions on the
fundamental rights as contemplated under Art. 19 of the Constitution. Minimum
Wages as envisaged in the Act have to be interpreted so that the workers and their
families could lead a minimum standard of life in a developing country like ours. The
State has to provide such amenities through welfare legislations. If the words
'minimum wages are interpreted as bare minimum wages sufficient for the live hood
and not for any other need, it amounts to forcing the labourer to work under sub-
standard conditions ignoring his other requirements such as clothing, health,
maintenance of children and family members. The Constitution guarantees
fundamental right of education to all the children of the employees and the expenses
to educate the children have to be met from the earnings of the employee. Therefore,
the contention that the minimum wages are fair or living wages only is not tenable.

Utkal Chamber of Commerce and Industry Ltd. and Ors. vs. State of Orissa and Ors.
(17.11.1991 - ORIHC) : MANU/OR/0369/1991
FACTS AND ISSUES: Petitioners sought invalidation of notifications dated 30-6-
1990 issued by the State Government under Section 5(2) read with Section 3(1)(6) of
the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, fixing the minimum wages payable to unskilled
employees employed in 75 scheduled employments at Rs. 25/- per day as infracting
Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the provisions contained in Section 3(1)(b)
and Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 5 and Section 9 of the Act and Rules 15 and
16 of the Orissa Minimum Wages Rules, 1954 –

JUDGMENT AND REASONING: Held, Board had failed to duly discharge its
function and responsibility so zealously interested to it by the legislature as an
adequate safeguard against arbitrary and capricious decision of the Government -
Alternative mode of appointing an Advisory Board can be resorted to where the
Government has in its possessions adequate data, enough materials for the purpose of
fixing the minimum rate of wages or for revision thereof -Considerations of the
representations and consultation with the Advisory Board are two mandatory
requirements which are sine-qua non for a decision under Section 5(2) - Fixation of
minimum rates of wages is a social welfare measure and the notifications were made
for uplift of conditions of the sweated labour, the employees who give their toil and
sweat for the country - But the violations in the case were so grave that 7th
notifications declare invalid - Government should with-draw the notifications on its
own and take up an exercise for fixing the minimum rate of wages in accordance with
the principles, guidelines and observations made by the Supreme Court and revise the
minimum rate of wages in accordance with law - Notifications dated 30-6-1990 in
regard to the 75 scheduled employments fixing the minimum rate of wages at Rs. 25/-
for unskilled employees, in the 75 employments quashed - Application allowed.

State of Gujarat and Anr. vs. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat (24.09.1998 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0632/1998

FACTS AND ISSUES: Article 23 of Constitution of India - whether

prisoners required to do labour as part of their punishment should be paid
wages for such work at rates prescribed under Minimum Wages Law –

JUDGMENT AND REASONING: Where person provides service to

another for remuneration less than minimum wage labour and service
would be "forced labour" under Article 23 - putting prisoner to hard
labour while he is undergoing rigorous imprisonment awarded to him by
Court cannot be equated with 'begar' or 'other forms of forced labour' as
contemplated in Article 23 - State may by appropriate legislation grant
wages to prisoners - States directed to constitute wage fixation body to
recommend quantum of equitable wages payable to prisoners.

Manager, Ibrahimji Isabhai vs. Authority, under Minimum Wages Act

and Ors. (16.03.1995 - MPHC) : MANU/MP/0579/1995

FACTS: The brief facts in the nut-shell are that Mazdoor Sabha Ujjain,
which is a registered Trade Union, for and on behalf of its five members
filed an application under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') stating therein that the Manager of
M/s Ibrahimji Isabhai and Sons has not paid the proper wages to the
Respondents Nos. 2 to 6. It was also alleged that the difference of the
minimum wages for the period between January 79 to June 1991 be
directed to be paid to Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 in view of the Notification
dated 7.12.1978. The Appellant (original non-applicant) filed before the
Authority inter alia contending that the claimants were not entitled to the
alleged difference so also it was submitted that the Authority under the
Minimum Wages Act had no jurisdiction to decide the classification as
according to the Appellant the matter related to classification of the
employees into skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled worker. The Authority
after recording the evidence and hearing the parties held that the case in
relation to Shabbir Hussain does not need any decision as neither he
appeared before the Authority nor did he lead any evidence in support of
his claim. It held that it had the jurisdiction in relation to classification of
the employees because that being a matter incidental to the decision of
the question of the payment of minimum wages and ultimately it held that
the four claimants, namely Hakimuddin, Kadarbhai, Ashokrao and
Girishkumar were entitled to sum of Rs. 1020/-, Rs. 1494/-, Rs. 843/- and
Rs. 969/- respectively. Being aggrieved by the said order, dated 13.1.83
passed in Case No. 3 of 81 by the Authority, the Appellant filed M.P. No.
357 of 1983.

JUDGMENTS AND REASONINGS: From the order dated 13.1.83

passed by the Authority which is based on appreciation of the evidence it
is clear that the employees were working for a long period either on a
particular post or were engaged in a particular work. The Authority after
considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the nature of the
work would certainly decide their placing or classification. The Authority
further held that Respondents Hakimuddin, Ashokrao and Kadar Bhai can
be treated as skilled labour, while Girish Kumar would fall within the
category of semi-skilled labour. Once this question was decided by the
Authority then obviously after applying the notification dated 7.12.1978
the Authority was justified in ordering the payment of the wages. In our
opinion the contention raised by the counsel for the Appellant that the
Authority constituted under Section 20 cannot decide the question of
classification of workmen, as it has no jurisdiction to do so, has to be
rejected. As observed by us and even by the authorities on which reliance
has been placed by the Appellants the questions which are incidental or
which relates to the jurisdiction of the Authority have certainly to be
decided by the Authority itself first. If the Authority comes to the
conclusion that a particular employee falls within a particular class then,
it only has to implement the provisions of law or the notifications issued.
An employer cannot be permitted to raise the question that in view of his
allegation that employee belongs to a particular class the authority would
have no jurisdiction to proceed further with the matter.

Mahipal Dadha and others vs. State of Bihar and others (25.09.1991 -
PATNAHC) : MANU/BH/0398/1991
FACTS AND ISSUES: In this application, the petitioners have prayed for
issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing a notification dated 5th
April, 1986 issued by the State of Bihar purported to be in exercise of its
power conferred upon it under section 3 (ia) and section 5 (ib) as also
under section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be
referred to and called for the sake of brevity as the said Act) whereby and
whereunder, inter alia, a religious and social Institution has been included
in the first schedule appended to the said Act and fixed the minimum
wages payable to the employees employed in the said Establishment. The
fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.

HELD AND REASONING: In this case, the petitioners have

categorically stated in the writ application that neither any Committee or
Sub-committee was constituted nor the procedures laid down under
sections 5, 7 and 9 have been complied with. No counter affidavit has
been filed in this case.

In this view of the matter, the statements made in the writ application
must be accepted to be correct. In that view of the matter, as a composite
notification under section 27 and section 3 of the said Act have been
issued and in view of the fact that admittedly the procedures laid down in
the said Act have not been followed, that part of the notification whereby
minimum wages for the employee have been fixed, cannot be sustained.
In the event the petitioners feel that it would cause immense hardship to
them, if the provisions of the said Act are made applicable, their remedy
lies in approaching the Government for exempting the 'Trust' from the
purview of the said Act in exercise of its power under Section 26 the said
Act.

However, there cannot be any doubt that in view of the scheme of the
said Act, a composite notification under sections 27 and Section 3 of the
said Act is not contemplated under the provisions of the said Act. This
becomes evident from the conjoint reading of the provisions of Section
27 and Section 5 of the said Act which provide for different period of
notices for the purposes specifically provided therein. In the result, this
application is allowed in part and only that part of the notification dated
5.4.1986 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application whereby
Minimum Wages have been fixed for the workmen, is quashed. However,
in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own
costs.