{"id":29883,"date":"2013-06-25T12:05:47","date_gmt":"2013-06-25T06:35:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/?p=29883"},"modified":"2013-06-25T13:17:07","modified_gmt":"2013-06-25T07:47:07","slug":"minimum-wages-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/minimum-wages-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Minimum Wages Act Case Law The Edward Mills Co Ltd Beawar And Others  Vs Respondent The State Of Ajmer"},"content":{"rendered":"<h1 style=\"text-align: center;\">Minimum Wages Act<\/h1>\n<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_47_1 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"ez-toc-toggle-icon-1\"><label for=\"item-69e4be35a8d92\" aria-label=\"Table of Content\"><span style=\"display: flex;align-items: center;width: 35px;height: 30px;justify-content: center;direction:ltr;\"><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/label><input  type=\"checkbox\" id=\"item-69e4be35a8d92\"><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 eztoc-visibility-hide-by-default' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/minimum-wages-act\/#petitioner-the-edward-mills-co-ltd-beawar-and-others\" title=\"Petitioner The Edward Mills Co Ltd Beawar And Others\">Petitioner The Edward Mills Co Ltd Beawar And Others<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/minimum-wages-act\/#vs-respondent-the-state-of-ajmer-and-another\" title=\"Vs Respondent The State Of Ajmer And Another\">Vs Respondent The State Of Ajmer And Another<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center;\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"petitioner-the-edward-mills-co-ltd-beawar-and-others\"><\/span>Petitioner The Edward Mills Co Ltd Beawar And Others<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center;\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"vs-respondent-the-state-of-ajmer-and-another\"><\/span>Vs Respondent The State Of Ajmer And Another<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><b>DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/10\/1954<\/b><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>BENCH: MUKHERJEA, B.K. BENCH: MUKHERJEA, B.K. AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA MAHAJAN, MEHAR CHAND (CJ) BOSE, VIVIAN JAGANNADHADAS, B.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><b>\u00a0<\/b><b>CITATION: 1955 AIR\u00a0\u00a0 25\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1955 SCR\u00a0 (1) 735<\/b><\/p>\n<p>CITATOR INFO<\/p>\n<table width=\"232\" border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"51\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>R<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"60\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>1960<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"63\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>SC 424<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"59\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>-10<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"51\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>\u00a0RF<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"60\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>1961<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"63\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>\u00a0SC4<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"59\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>\u00a0(5,25)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"51\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>\u00a0RF<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"60\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>1961<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"63\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>SC298<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"59\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>-12<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"51\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>\u00a0F<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"60\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>1962<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"63\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>SC12<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"59\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>-11<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"51\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>\u00a0RF<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"60\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>1962<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"63\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>SC97<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"59\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>-6<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"51\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>\u00a0R<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"60\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>1964<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"63\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>SC648<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"59\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>\u00a0(17,4)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"51\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>\u00a0R<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"60\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>1964<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"63\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>SC980<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"59\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>-8<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"51\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>\u00a0R<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"60\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>1964<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"63\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>SC1260<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"59\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>-6<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"51\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>\u00a0RF<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"60\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>1966<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"63\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>SC1788<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"59\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>-38<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"51\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>\u00a0RF<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"60\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>1967<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"63\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>SC669<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"59\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>-29<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"51\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>\u00a0RF<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"60\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>1967<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"63\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>SC691<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"59\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>-66<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"51\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>\u00a0R<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"60\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>1970<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"63\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>SC2042<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"59\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>-10<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"51\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>\u00a0R<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"60\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>1974<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"63\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>SC1044<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"59\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>-6<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"51\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>\u00a0E<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"60\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>1980<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"63\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>SC350<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"59\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>-5<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"51\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>\u00a0RF<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"60\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>1982<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"63\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>SC149<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"59\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>-803<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"51\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>\u00a0D<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"60\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>1986<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"63\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>SC872<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"59\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>-110<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"51\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>\u00a0R<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"60\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>1990<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"63\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>SC560<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"bottom\" nowrap=\"nowrap\" width=\"59\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>-13<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><b>ACT:<\/b> Constitution of India, Art. 372-Words &#8220;law in\u00a0 force&#8221;- Meaning\u00a0 of- Whether include regulation or order having\u00a0 the force\u00a0 of\u00a0 law\u00a0 &#8211;An\u00a0 order\u00a0 made\u00a0 under\u00a0 s.\u00a0 94(3)\u00a0 of\u00a0 the Government\u00a0 of India Act, 1935 -Whether &#8220;law in\u00a0 force&#8221;\u00a0 and capable\u00a0 of\u00a0 adaptation-Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Act\u00a0 XI\u00a0 of 1948), s. 27-&#8220;Appropriate Government&#8221; -Given power to add to either\u00a0 part of schedule-Any employment in respect of\u00a0 which minimum\u00a0 rates of wages should be fixed-Whether\u00a0 such\u00a0 power warranted and not unconstitutional and within the limits\u00a0 of permissible\u00a0 delegation-Advisory\u00a0 committee-Appointment\u00a0 of- Under\u00a0 s.\u00a0 5\u00a0 of the Act-Extension of its\u00a0 term\u00a0 beyond\u00a0 the period already expired-Validity-Proceduraral irregularities- Wlhether vitiate the final report. 736<\/p>\n<p><b>HEADNOTE:<\/b> The words &#8216;law in force&#8217; as used in Art. 372 of the\u00a0 Consti- tution\u00a0 are wide enough to include not merely a\u00a0 legislative enactment\u00a0 but\u00a0 also any regulation or order which\u00a0 has\u00a0 the force of law. An order made by the Governor-General under s. 94(3)\u00a0 of the\u00a0 Government\u00a0 of\u00a0 India Act, 1935,\u00a0 investing\u00a0 the\u00a0 Chief Commissioner with the authority to administer a province\u00a0 is really\u00a0 in\u00a0 the\u00a0 nature of\u00a0 a\u00a0 legislative\u00a0 provision\u00a0 which defines\u00a0 the rights and powers of the Chief Commissioner\u00a0 in respect\u00a0 of that province.\u00a0 Such an order comes\u00a0 within\u00a0 the purview of Art. 372 of the Constitution and being a &#8216;law\u00a0 in force&#8217;\u00a0\u00a0 immediately\u00a0\u00a0 before\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 commencement\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the Constitution\u00a0 would continue to be inforce under clause\u00a0 (1) of the article.\u00a0 Such an order is capa ble of adaptation\u00a0 to bring\u00a0 it in accord with the constitutional\u00a0 provisions\u00a0 and this\u00a0 is precisely what has been done by the\u00a0 Adaptation\u00a0 of Laws Order, 1950.\u00a0 Therefore an order made under s. 94(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, should be reckoned now as an order made under Art. 239 of the Constitution and it\u00a0 was within\u00a0 the competence of the President under clause (2)\u00a0 of Art. 372 to make the adaptation order.<\/p>\n<p>Under\u00a0 s. 27 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948,\u00a0 power\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 has been given to the &#8220;appropriate Government&#8221; to add to \u00a0either part\u00a0 of the schedule any employment in respect of which\u00a0 it is\u00a0 of opinion that minimum wages shall be fixed\u00a0 by\u00a0 giving notification\u00a0 in\u00a0 a\u00a0 particular manner,\u00a0 and\u00a0 thereupon\u00a0 the scheme shall, in its application to the State, be deemed\u00a0 to be\u00a0 amended accordingly.\u00a0 There is an element of\u00a0 delegation implied\u00a0 in\u00a0 the\u00a0 provisions of s. 27 of the\u00a0 Act,\u00a0 for\u00a0 the Legislature,\u00a0 in a sense, authorises another body\u00a0 specified by\u00a0 it, to do something which it might do itself.\u00a0 But\u00a0 such delegation,\u00a0 if \u00a0it\u00a0 can\u00a0 be\u00a0 so\u00a0 called\u00a0 at\u00a0 all,\u00a0 is\u00a0\u00a0 not unwarranted and unconstitutional and it does not exceed\u00a0 the limits of permissible delegation.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The\u00a0 legislative policy is apparent on the face of\u00a0 the present\u00a0 enactment.\u00a0\u00a0 What\u00a0 it\u00a0 aims\u00a0 at\u00a0 is\u00a0 the\u00a0 statutory fixation of minimum wages with a view to obviate the chances of\u00a0 exploitation of labour.\u00a0 It is to carry out\u00a0 effectively the\u00a0 purposes of the enactment that power has been given\u00a0 to the appropriate Government to decide with reference to local conditions whether it is desirable that minimum wages should be\u00a0 fixed in regard to a particular trade or industry\u00a0 which is not already included in the list.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore\u00a0 in\u00a0 enacting s. 27 the\u00a0 legislature\u00a0 has not stripped\u00a0 itself of its essential powers or assigned to\u00a0 the administrative\u00a0 authority\u00a0 anything\u00a0 but\u00a0 an\u00a0 accessory\u00a0\u00a0 or subordinate\u00a0 power which was deemed necessary to\u00a0 carry\u00a0 out the purpose and the policy of the Act. Rule\u00a0 3\u00a0 of the rules framed under s.\u00a0 30\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 Act empowers\u00a0 the\u00a0 State\u00a0 Government\u00a0 to fix\u00a0 the\u00a0 term\u00a0 of\u00a0 the committee\u00a0 appointed under s. 5 of the Act and to extend\u00a0 it from time to time as circumstances require. The period originally fixed had expired and its term was extended subsequently.\u00a0 It did not function and submitted no 737 report\u00a0 during\u00a0 the period.\u00a0 Assuming\u00a0 that\u00a0 the\u00a0 subsequent order could not revive a committee which was already dead, a new committee could be held to have been constituted and the report,\u00a0 submitted by it would be a perfectly\u00a0 good\u00a0 report. Apart\u00a0 from this, a committee is only an advisory\u00a0 body\u00a0 and procedural\u00a0 irregularities\u00a0 of\u00a0 this\u00a0 character\u00a0 could\u00a0\u00a0 not vitiate the final report which fixed the minimum wages. Baxter v. Ah Way (8 C.L.R. 626) and Reg. v.\u00a0 Burah\u00a0 (3 App.\u00a0 Cas. 889) referred to.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION<\/strong>: Civil Appeals Nos. 138 and 139 of 1954. Appeals under articles 132 and 133 of the\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Constitution of\u00a0 India\u00a0 from\u00a0 the\u00a0 Judgment and\u00a0 Order,\u00a0 dated\u00a0 the\u00a0 16th February,\u00a0 1953,\u00a0 of\u00a0 the Court \u00a0of\u00a0 Judicial\u00a0 Commissioner, Ajmer, in Civil Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 260 and 263\u00a0 of 1952. N.C. Chatterjee (B.\u00a0 D. Sharma and Naunit Lal, with him) for appellants Nos. 1 and 2 in C. A. No. 138 of 1954 (Edward Mills and Krishna Mills). Achhru Ram (B.\u00a0 D. Sharma and Naunit Lal, with him) for appellant No. 3 in C. A. No. 138 of 1954 (Mahalaxmi Mills). H.N. Seervai, J. B. Dadachanji and Rajinder Narain for the appellant in C. A. No. 139 of 1954. C.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India (M.\u00a0 M. Kaul and P. G. Gokhale, with him) for respondent\u00a0 No. 2 (Union of India). 1954.\u00a0 October 14.\u00a0 The Judgment of the Court was\u00a0 delivered by<\/p>\n<p>MUKHERJEA \u00a0J.-These two appeals are directed against\u00a0 a common judgment, dated the 16th of February, 1953, passed by the\u00a0 Judicial\u00a0 Commissioner\u00a0 of\u00a0 Ajmer,\u00a0 on\u00a0 two\u00a0\u00a0 analogous petitions\u00a0 under article 226 of the Constitution, in one\u00a0 of which\u00a0 the\u00a0 appellants in Appeal No. 138 of\u00a0 1954\u00a0 were\u00a0 the petitioners,\u00a0 while the other was filed by the appellant\u00a0 in Appeal No. 139 of 1954. The\u00a0 petitioners\u00a0 in\u00a0 both\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0 cases\u00a0 prayed\u00a0 for\u00a0\u00a0 a declaration that the notification, dated the 7th of October, 1952, issued by the State Government of 738 Ajmer,\u00a0 fixing the minimum rates of wages in respect\u00a0 of employment in the textile industry within that State,\u00a0 under the\u00a0 provisions of the Minimum Wages Act (Act XI\u00a0 of\u00a0 1948), was\u00a0 illegal and ultra vires and for issue of writs\u00a0 in\u00a0 the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to\u00a0 enforce the same against the petitioners.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>To appreciate the points that have been canvassed before us,\u00a0 it will be convenient to narrate briefly\u00a0 the\u00a0 material facts\u00a0 in chronological order.\u00a0 On the 15th of March,\u00a0 1948, the\u00a0 Central Legislature of India passed an Act\u00a0 called \u00a0The Minimum\u00a0 Wages Act, 1948, the object of which, as stated\u00a0 in the\u00a0 preamble,\u00a0 is to provide for fixing\u00a0 minimum\u00a0 rates\u00a0 of wages in certain employments.\u00a0 The schedule attached to\u00a0 the Act\u00a0 specifies, under two parts, the employments in\u00a0 respect of\u00a0 which the minimum wages of the employees can\u00a0 be\u00a0 fixed; and\u00a0 section\u00a0 27 authorises\u00a0 the\u00a0 &#8220;appropriate\u00a0 Government&#8221;, after giving three months&#8217; notice of its intention to do so, to add to either part of the schedule, any other employment, in respect of which it is of the opinion that minimum\u00a0 rates of\u00a0 wages\u00a0 should be fixed under the\u00a0 Act.\u00a0\u00a0 The\u00a0 expression &#8220;appropriate\u00a0 Government&#8221; as defined in section 2(b)\u00a0 means, in\u00a0 relation\u00a0 to\u00a0 a scheduled\u00a0 employment,\u00a0 other\u00a0 than\u00a0 one carried by or under the authority of the Central Government, the\u00a0 State\u00a0 Government&#8217;\u00a0 Under section\u00a0 3\u00a0 the\u00a0 &#8220;appropriate Government&#8221;\u00a0 is\u00a0 to fix minimum wages payable\u00a0 to\u00a0 employees employed in any employment specified in the schedule at\u00a0 the commencement\u00a0 of\u00a0 the Act or added to it\u00a0 subsequently\u00a0 in accordance\u00a0 with the provisions of section 27.\u00a0\u00a0 Sub-section (1)\u00a0 (a)\u00a0 of\u00a0 this\u00a0 section provides\u00a0 inter\u00a0 alia\u00a0 that\u00a0 the &#8220;appropriate Government&#8221; may refrain from fixing the minimum rates\u00a0 of\u00a0 wages in respect of any scheduled\u00a0 employment\u00a0 in which there are in the whole State less than 1,000 employees engaged\u00a0 in\u00a0 such\u00a0 employment.\u00a0 Section\u00a0 5\u00a0 lays\u00a0 down\u00a0 the procedure\u00a0\u00a0 for\u00a0 fixing\u00a0 minimum\u00a0 wages.\u00a0\u00a0 The appropriate Government\u00a0 can\u00a0 appoint a committee to\u00a0 hold\u00a0 enquiries\u00a0 to advise\u00a0 it\u00a0 in the matter of fixing minimum\u00a0 wages;\u00a0 in\u00a0 the alternative\u00a0 it can, by notification in the official\u00a0 public gazette,\u00a0 publish\u00a0 its\u00a0 proposals\u00a0 for\u00a0 the\u00a0 information\u00a0 of persons likely to be affected thereby.\u00a0 After 739<\/p>\n<p>considering\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 advice \u00a0\u00a0of\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 committee\u00a0\u00a0 or\u00a0\u00a0 the representations\u00a0 on\u00a0 the proposals as the case may\u00a0 be,\u00a0 the &#8216;appropriate\u00a0 Government&#8217;\u00a0 shall fix the\u00a0 minimum\u00a0 rates\u00a0 of wages\u00a0\u00a0 in\u00a0\u00a0 respect\u00a0 to\u00a0 any\u00a0\u00a0 scheduled\u00a0\u00a0 employment,\u00a0\u00a0 by notification\u00a0 in the official gazette, and such rates\u00a0 would come into force on the expiry of three months from the\u00a0 date of issue unless the notification directs otherwise.\u00a0 Section 9 provides inter alia that an advisory committee constituted under\u00a0 section 5 shall consist of persons nominated\u00a0 by\u00a0 the appropriate Government.\u00a0 There shall be in the committee\u00a0 an equal\u00a0 number\u00a0 of representatives of the employers\u00a0 and\u00a0 the employed\u00a0 in\u00a0 any scheduled employment and\u00a0 there\u00a0 shall\u00a0 be independent persons as well, not exceeding one-third of\u00a0 the total number, one of whom shall be appointed Chairman. Section\u00a0 30 confers on the appropriate\u00a0 Government\u00a0 the power\u00a0 to\u00a0 make rules for carrying out the purposes\u00a0 of\u00a0 the Act. It<\/p>\n<p>may\u00a0 be mentioned at the outset that Part I\u00a0 of\u00a0 the schedule to the Act mentioned only 12 items of employment at the\u00a0 time\u00a0 when\u00a0 the Act was passed and\u00a0 employment\u00a0 in\u00a0 the textile\u00a0 industry was not included in Chem.\u00a0 On the 16th\u00a0 of March,\u00a0 1949, the Central Government issued a\u00a0 notification, in\u00a0 exercise\u00a0 of\u00a0 its\u00a0 powers under\u00a0 section\u00a0 94(3)\u00a0 of\u00a0 the Government of India Act, 1935, directing that the\u00a0 functions of\u00a0 the\u00a0 &#8220;appropriate Government&#8221; tinder the\u00a0 Minimum\u00a0 Wages Act,\u00a0 would,\u00a0 in\u00a0 respect\u00a0 of\u00a0 every\u00a0 Chief\u00a0\u00a0 Commissioner&#8217;s Province,\u00a0 be exercised by the Chief Commissioner.\u00a0\u00a0 On\u00a0 the 17th March, 1950, the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer,\u00a0 purport- ing\u00a0 to\u00a0 act as the &#8220;appropriate Government&#8221; of\u00a0 the\u00a0 State, published\u00a0 a notification in terms of section 27 of the\u00a0 Act giving\u00a0 three\u00a0 months&#8217; notice of his\u00a0 intention\u00a0 to\u00a0 include employment\u00a0 in\u00a0 the textile mills as an additional\u00a0 item\u00a0 in Part\u00a0 I of the schedule.\u00a0 On the 10th of October, 1950,\u00a0 the final\u00a0 notification\u00a0 was\u00a0 issued\u00a0 stating\u00a0 that\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 Chief Commissioner\u00a0 had directed &#8220;that the employment\u00a0 in\u00a0 textile industry&#8221; should be added in Part I of the schedule. On\u00a0 the\u00a0 23rd November, 1950,\u00a0 another\u00a0 notification\u00a0 was published under the signature of the Secretary to 740<\/p>\n<p>the\u00a0 Chief Commissioner containing the rules\u00a0 purporting\u00a0 to have\u00a0 been framed by the Chief Commissioner in\u00a0 exercise\u00a0 of his powers under section 30 of the Act.\u00a0 Out of these,\u00a0 only rules 3, 8 and 9 are material for our present purpose.\u00a0 Rule 3\u00a0 provides\u00a0 that the term of office of the\u00a0 members\u00a0 of\u00a0 an advisory\u00a0 committee shall be such, as in the opinion of\u00a0 the State\u00a0 Government, is necessary for completing\u00a0 the\u00a0 enquiry into\u00a0 the\u00a0 scheduled\u00a0 employment\u00a0 concerned\u00a0 and\u00a0 the\u00a0 State Government\u00a0 may,\u00a0 at\u00a0 the time of the\u00a0 constitution\u00a0 of\u00a0 the committees, fix a term and may, from time to time, extend it as\u00a0 circumstances may require.\u00a0 Rule 8 provides for\u00a0 filling up the vacancies occurring or likely to occur in the member- ship of the committee by resignation of any of its\u00a0 members. Rule 9 lays down that if a member of the committee fails\u00a0 to attend\u00a0 three\u00a0 consecutive meetings he would cease to\u00a0 be\u00a0 a member\u00a0 thereof.\u00a0 The rule further states that\u00a0 such\u00a0 member could,\u00a0 if he so desires, apply, within a certain\u00a0 time\u00a0 for restoration of his membership and restoration could be\u00a0 made if the majority of the members are satisfied that there were adequate reasons for his failure to attend the meetings.<\/p>\n<p>On the 17th January, 1952, a committee was appointed\u00a0 to hold\u00a0 enquiries and advise the Chief Commissioner in\u00a0 regard to\u00a0 the\u00a0 fixation of minimum wages relating to\u00a0 the\u00a0 textile industry\u00a0 within\u00a0 the\u00a0 State.\u00a0 Ten\u00a0 members\u00a0 were\u00a0 nominated consisting\u00a0 of four represeiitatives of the employers,\u00a0 four of\u00a0 the employees and two independent members, one\u00a0 of\u00a0 whom Shri\u00a0 Annigeri\u00a0 was\u00a0 to\u00a0 act as\u00a0 an\u00a0 expert\u00a0 member\u00a0 of\u00a0 the committee\u00a0 and the other, Dr. Bagchi, as its Chairman.\u00a0\u00a0 The term\u00a0 of office of the members was fixed at-six months\u00a0 from the\u00a0 date\u00a0 of the notification ending on the 16th\u00a0 of\u00a0 July, 1952.\u00a0\u00a0 The first meeting of the committee was held\u00a0 on\u00a0 the 29th February, 1952.\u00a0 The expert member was present at\u00a0 that meeting and it was resolved that the minimum wages must\u00a0 not merely\u00a0 provide for the bare subsistence of life but\u00a0 should be\u00a0 adequate\u00a0 for the maintenance of the efficiency\u00a0 of\u00a0 the worker.\u00a0\u00a0 The\u00a0 second meeting was held on\u00a0 the\u00a0 29th\u00a0 March, 1952,\u00a0 and the third on the 14th of June, 1952.\u00a0 The\u00a0 expert member was not present at any other meeting except the first and on the 27th of 741 May,\u00a0 1952,\u00a0 he\u00a0 wrote a letter to\u00a0 the\u00a0 Chief\u00a0 Commissioner stating\u00a0 that he was proceeding to Europe on the 3rdd\u00a0 June, 1952,\u00a0 for\u00a0 a\u00a0 period of three months.\u00a0\u00a0 He\u00a0 expressed&#8217;\u00a0 his willingness to assist the Chairman in the preparation of the report\u00a0 after he came back from Europe by the first week\u00a0 of September,\u00a0 next,\u00a0 provided the term of\u00a0 the\u00a0 committee\u00a0 was extended.\u00a0\u00a0 If however that was not possible,\u00a0 he\u00a0 requested that his letter might be treated as a letter of\u00a0 resignation from the membership of the Committee.\u00a0 No action appears\u00a0 to have\u00a0 been taken on receipt of the letter.\u00a0 The\u00a0 fourth\u00a0 and the\u00a0 fifth meetings of the committee were held\u00a0 respectively on the 8th and the 15th of July, 1952.<\/p>\n<p>On the 20th\u00a0 August, 1952,\u00a0 the the Chairman of the Committee informed the\u00a0 Chief Commissioner that Shri Annigeri had ceased to be a member of the\u00a0 committee\u00a0 by\u00a0 reason of his failing\u00a0 to\u00a0 attend\u00a0 three consecutive\u00a0 meetings.\u00a0 He had also desired that his\u00a0 letter to\u00a0 the Chief Commissioner dated the 27th May, 1952,\u00a0 should be treated as a letter of resignation.\u00a0 In the circumstances the Chief Commissioner was requested to fill up this vacancy in the membership.\u00a0 On the very next day, that is to say, on the\u00a0 21st August, 1952, a notification was issued\u00a0 by\u00a0 which the Chief Commissioner ordered the extension of the term\u00a0 of the committee up to the 20th of September, 1952, and on\u00a0 the 28th\u00a0 of\u00a0 August, following, another notification\u00a0 was\u00a0 made appointing Shri Annigeri as a member of the committee.\u00a0\u00a0 The term of the committee was extended by a further notification till the 5th of October, 1952.\u00a0 In the meantime a meeting of the committee was held on the 10th September, 1952, in which Shri\u00a0 Annigeri was not present.\u00a0 The only resolution\u00a0 passed was, that all relevant papers might besent to Shri\u00a0 Annigeri as desired by him.\u00a0 It appears that some time after the 14th of September, 1952, the Chairman himself took the papers\u00a0 to Nagpur\u00a0 where\u00a0 Shri Annigeri was staying and a\u00a0 draft\u00a0 final report was prepared by the Chairman in consultation with the expert member and both of them signed the report at\u00a0 Nagpur. The\u00a0 report was placed before the other members on\u00a0 the\u00a0 4th October,\u00a0 1952,\u00a0 and\u00a0 on the 7th of\u00a0 October,\u00a0 following,\u00a0 a notification was issued fixing 95 742 minimum\u00a0 rates\u00a0 of wages for the employees\u00a0 in\u00a0 the\u00a0 textile industry\u00a0 in the State of Ajmer, under the signature of\u00a0 the Secretary\u00a0 to the Chief Commissioner and stating that\u00a0 these rates\u00a0 should\u00a0 be\u00a0 deemed to be in force\u00a0 from\u00a0 the\u00a0 1st\u00a0 of September, 1952.<\/p>\n<p>Feeling\u00a0\u00a0 aggrieved\u00a0\u00a0 by\u00a0 this notification\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 three appellants\u00a0\u00a0 in\u00a0 Appeal\u00a0 No.\u00a0 138\u00a0 of\u00a0 1954\u00a0\u00a0 presented\u00a0\u00a0 an application under article 226 of the Constitution before the Judicial\u00a0 Commissioner of Ajmer on the 31st\u00a0 October,\u00a0 1952, praying\u00a0 for a writ in the nature of mandamus\u00a0 ordering\u00a0 the State\u00a0 of\u00a0 Ajmer\u00a0 not\u00a0 to\u00a0 enforce\u00a0 the\u00a0 same.\u00a0\u00a0 A\u00a0\u00a0 similar application\u00a0 was\u00a0 filed\u00a0 by\u00a0 the\u00a0 Bijay\u00a0 Cotton\u00a0 Mills,\u00a0 the appellant in the other appeal, on the 6th of November, 1952. Both the petitions were heard together and a common judgment was\u00a0 passed\u00a0 by\u00a0 the Judicial Commissioner on\u00a0 the\u00a0 16th\u00a0 of February, 1953.\u00a0 The applications were dismissed except that the\u00a0 Chief Commissioner was held to have exceeded his\u00a0 legal authority in giving retrospective effect to the notification of\u00a0 the\u00a0 7th of October, 1952, and the State of\u00a0 Ajmer,\u00a0 was restrained\u00a0 from\u00a0 enforcing the notification from\u00a0 any\u00a0 date earlier\u00a0 than the 8th of January, 1953.\u00a0 It is against\u00a0 this judgment\u00a0 that these two appeals have come up to this\u00a0 Court on\u00a0 the\u00a0 strength of certificates granted\u00a0 by\u00a0 the\u00a0 Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Chatterjee, appearing for the appellants in\u00a0 Appeal No. 138, has put forward a three-fold argument on behalf\u00a0 of his\u00a0 clients.\u00a0\u00a0 He\u00a0 has contended in the\u00a0 first\u00a0 place\u00a0 that without\u00a0 a\u00a0 delegation of authority by the\u00a0 President\u00a0 under article\u00a0 239 of the Constitution, the Chief Commissioner\u00a0 of Ajmer\u00a0 was\u00a0 not competent to function\u00a0 as\u00a0 the\u00a0 &#8220;appropriate Government&#8221; for purposes of the Minimum Wages Act.\u00a0 All\u00a0 the steps\u00a0 therefore that were taken by the\u00a0 Chief\u00a0 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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 second\u00a0 contention raised is that the\u00a0 provision\u00a0 of section 27 of the Act is illegal and ultra vires inasmuch as it amounts to an illegal and unconstitutional delegation\u00a0 of legislative\u00a0 powers\u00a0 by\u00a0 the Legislature in\u00a0 favour\u00a0 of\u00a0 the &#8220;appropriate Government&#8221; as defined in the 743 Act.\u00a0\u00a0 The third and the last contention is, that the\u00a0 Chief Commissioner had no authority to extend retrospectively\u00a0 the term of the Advisory Committee after it expired on the\u00a0 16th of July, 1952.<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Seervai, who appeared in support of the other appeal, adopted\u00a0 all\u00a0 these arguments on behalf of his\u00a0 client.\u00a0\u00a0 He however\u00a0\u00a0 raised\u00a0 some\u00a0 additional\u00a0 points\u00a0 impeaching\u00a0\u00a0 the constitutional\u00a0 validity of the Minimum Wages Act itself\u00a0 on the\u00a0\u00a0 ground\u00a0 that\u00a0 its\u00a0 provisions\u00a0 conflicted\u00a0\u00a0 with\u00a0\u00a0 the fundamental\u00a0 rights\u00a0 of\u00a0 the appellants\u00a0 and\u00a0 its\u00a0 employees guaranteed\u00a0 under\u00a0 article 19(1) (g)\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 Constitution. These points were argued elaborately by the learned\u00a0 counsel in connection with the two petitions filed on behalf of\u00a0 the Bijay\u00a0 Cotton\u00a0 Mills Ltd., and a number of\u00a0 employees\u00a0 under them\u00a0 under article 32 of the Constitution and we will\u00a0 take them up for consideration when dealing with these petitions. We\u00a0 will now proceed to consider the three points\u00a0 mentioned above which have been raised in support of the appeals.<\/p>\n<p>So far as the first ground is concerned the argument of\u00a0 Mr. Chatterjee in substance is that the expression\u00a0 &#8220;appropriate Government&#8221;\u00a0 has\u00a0 been defined in section 2(b) (ii)\u00a0 of\u00a0 the Minimum\u00a0 Wages\u00a0 Act to mean, in relation\u00a0 to\u00a0 any\u00a0 scheduled employment, not carried on by or under the authority of\u00a0 the Central\u00a0\u00a0 Government,\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 State\u00a0\u00a0 Government.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 &#8220;State Government&#8221; has been defined in section 3(60) of the General Clauses Act as meaning, in regard to anything done or to\u00a0 be done after the commencement of the Constitution in a Part\u00a0 C State, the Central Government.\u00a0 Prior to the commencement of the\u00a0 Constitution, under section 94(3) of the Government\u00a0 of India\u00a0 Act, 1935, a chief commissioner&#8217;s Province\u00a0 could\u00a0 be administered\u00a0 by the GovernorGeneral acting to such\u00a0 extent, as\u00a0 he\u00a0 thought\u00a0 fit, through a\u00a0 Chief\u00a0 Commissioner\u00a0 to\u00a0 be appointed\u00a0 by him in his discretion; and under section\u00a0 3(8) of\u00a0 the General Clauses Act, as it stood before the 26th\u00a0 of January, 1950, the expression &#8220;Central Government&#8221; included, in\u00a0 the case of a Chief Commissioner&#8217;s Province,\u00a0 the\u00a0 Chief Commissioner\u00a0 acting within the scope of authority given\u00a0 to him under section 94(3) of the Government of 744<\/p>\n<p>India\u00a0 Act,\u00a0 1935.\u00a0 Article 239 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 Constitution\u00a0 which corresponds to section 94(3) of the Government of India Act, though\u00a0 it\u00a0 is much wider in scope, provides\u00a0 that\u00a0 a\u00a0 State specified\u00a0 in\u00a0 Part\u00a0 C\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 First\u00a0 Schedule\u00a0 shall\u00a0\u00a0 be administered\u00a0 by the President acting, to such extent as \u00a0he thinks\u00a0 fit,\u00a0 through a Chief Commissioner or\u00a0 a\u00a0 Lieutenant Governor to be appointed by him or through the Government of a\u00a0\u00a0 neighbouring\u00a0 State.\u00a0\u00a0 Agreed\u00a0 to\u00a0 this\u00a0\u00a0 constitutional provision section 3(8 ) (b) (ii) Of the General Clauses Act, as\u00a0 amended\u00a0 by the Adaptation Laws Order, 1950,\u00a0 lays\u00a0 down that the expression &#8220;Central Government&#8221; shall include inter alia the Chief Commissioner of a Part C State acting\u00a0 within the scope of the authority given to him under article 239 of the\u00a0 Constitution.\u00a0 \u00a0Ajmer was admittedly\u00a0 a\u00a0 Chief\u00a0 Commis- sioner&#8217;s\u00a0 Province under section 94(1) of the Government\u00a0 of India\u00a0 -Act, 1935.\u00a0 It has become a Part C State\u00a0 after\u00a0 the coming\u00a0 into force of the Constitution.\u00a0 As has been\u00a0 stated already, the Central Government issued a notification on the 16th\u00a0 of March, 1949, under section 94(3) of the\u00a0 Government of\u00a0\u00a0 India\u00a0\u00a0 Act,\u00a0 directing\u00a0 that\u00a0 the\u00a0 function\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the &#8220;appropriate Government&#8221; under the Minimum Wages Act\u00a0 would, in\u00a0\u00a0 respect\u00a0 of\u00a0 any\u00a0 Chief\u00a0 Commissioner&#8217;s\u00a0 Province,\u00a0\u00a0 be exercised\u00a0 by\u00a0 the Chief Commissioner.\u00a0 There\u00a0 was\u00a0 no\u00a0 such delegation\u00a0 of\u00a0 authority however under article 239\u00a0 of\u00a0 the Constitution\u00a0 after the Constitution came into\u00a0 force.\u00a0\u00a0 Mr. Chatterjee contends that in the absence of such\u00a0 delegation under article 239 the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer cannot\u00a0 be regarded as &#8220;Central Government&#8221; as defined in section\u00a0 3(8) (b) (ii) of the General Clauses Act as it stands at\u00a0 present and consequently he could not be held to be the &#8220;appropriate Government&#8221;\u00a0 within the meaning of section 2(b) (ii) of\u00a0 the Minimum Wages Act.\u00a0 The Government of India Act, it is said, stands\u00a0 repealed\u00a0 by article 395 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 Constitution.\u00a0\u00a0 An order issued under section 94(3) of the Government of\u00a0 India Act\u00a0 cannot possibly be operative after the inauguration\u00a0 of the Constitution, nor could it be regarded as an order\u00a0 made under article 239 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n<p>The contention\u00a0 does not appear to us to\u00a0 be\u00a0 sound.\u00a0\u00a0 A complete reply to this argument is furnished, in our 745 opinion, by the provisions of clauses (1) and (2) of article 372 of the Constitution.\u00a0 Article 372 runs as follows: &#8220;372.\u00a0\u00a0 (1)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Notwithstanding\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 repeal\u00a0\u00a0 by\u00a0\u00a0 this Constitution\u00a0 of the enactments referred to in\u00a0 article\u00a0 395 but\u00a0 subject to the other provisions of\u00a0 this\u00a0 Constitution, all\u00a0 the law in force in the territory of India\u00a0 immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall\u00a0 continue in\u00a0 force therein until altered or repealed or amended by\u00a0 a competent Legislature or other competent authority. (2)\u00a0 For the purpose of bringing the provisions of\u00a0 any law in force in the territory of India into accord with\u00a0 the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by\u00a0 order make such adaptations and modifications of such law, whether by\u00a0 way\u00a0 of\u00a0 repeal or amendment, as\u00a0 may\u00a0 be\u00a0 necessary\u00a0 or expedient, and provide that the law shall, as from such date as may be specified in the order, have effect subject to the adaptations\u00a0\u00a0 and\u00a0 modifications\u00a0 so\u00a0 made,\u00a0 and\u00a0 any\u00a0\u00a0 such adaptation\u00a0 or modification shall not be questioned\u00a0 in\u00a0 any court of law.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Thus clause (1) of the article provides for continuance, in force, of the existing laws notwithstanding the repeal by the Constitution of the enactments mentioned in article \u00a0395 and clause (2) provides for their adaptation with a view\u00a0 to bring\u00a0\u00a0 them\u00a0 into\u00a0 accord\u00a0 with\u00a0 the\u00a0 provisions\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the Constitution.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The\u00a0\u00a0 Government\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 India\u00a0\u00a0 Act,\u00a0\u00a0 1935, undoubtedly\u00a0\u00a0 stands\u00a0\u00a0 repealed\u00a0 by\u00a0 article\u00a0 395\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the Constitution,\u00a0 but\u00a0 laws\u00a0 made\u00a0 thereunder\u00a0 which\u00a0 were\u00a0\u00a0 in existence\u00a0\u00a0 immediately\u00a0 before\u00a0 the\u00a0 commencement\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the Constitution\u00a0 would continue under article 372(1) and\u00a0 could be\u00a0 adapted :under the second clause of that\u00a0 article.\u00a0\u00a0 Mr. Chatterjee argues that article 372 has no application to the present\u00a0 case\u00a0 inasmuch\u00a0 as the order made\u00a0 by\u00a0 the\u00a0 Central Government\u00a0 under section 94(3) of the Government\u00a0 of\u00a0 India Act\u00a0 could\u00a0 not be regarded as &#8220;a law in force&#8221;\u00a0 within\u00a0 the meaning of article 372.\u00a0 A distinction is sought to be\u00a0 made by the learned counsel between an &#8220;existing law&#8221; as\u00a0 defined in\u00a0 article\u00a0 366(10) and a &#8220;law in force&#8221; and it\u00a0 is\u00a0 argued that though an &#8220;order&#8221; can come within the definition 746 of\u00a0 &#8220;existing\u00a0 law&#8221;,\u00a0 it\u00a0 cannot\u00a0 be\u00a0 included\u00a0 within\u00a0\u00a0 the expression\u00a0 &#8220;law\u00a0 in force&#8221; as used in article 372.\u00a0\u00a0 It\u00a0 is argued\u00a0 next that even if the word &#8220;law&#8221; is wide\u00a0 enough\u00a0 to include an order, that order must be a legislative and not a mere\u00a0 executive\u00a0 order\u00a0 promulgated\u00a0 by\u00a0 an\u00a0\u00a0 administrative authority,\u00a0 and\u00a0 in support of this contention\u00a0 the\u00a0 learned counsel has relied on a number of cases decided by the Privy Council and the different High Courts in India.<\/p>\n<p>The first point does not impress us much and we do not think\u00a0 that\u00a0 there is any material difference between\u00a0 &#8221;\u00a0 an existing\u00a0 law&#8221;\u00a0 and\u00a0 &#8220;a law in\u00a0 force&#8221;.\u00a0\u00a0 Quite\u00a0 apart\u00a0 from article 366(10) of the Constitution, the expression\u00a0 &#8220;Indian law&#8221; has itself been defined in section 3(29) of the General Clauses Act as meaning any Act, ordinance, regulation, rule, order,\u00a0 or\u00a0 bye-law\u00a0 which before the\u00a0 commencement\u00a0 of\u00a0 the Constitution\u00a0 had the force of law in any province of\u00a0 India or\u00a0 part thereof.\u00a0 In out opinion, the words &#8220;law in\u00a0 force&#8221; as used in article 372 are wide enough to include not merely a\u00a0 legislative\u00a0 enactment but also any regulation\u00a0 or\u00a0 order which\u00a0 has the force of law.\u00a0 We agree with\u00a0 Mr.\u00a0 Chatterjee that\u00a0 an\u00a0 order must be a legislative and not\u00a0 an\u00a0 executive order\u00a0 before it can come within the definition of law. \u00a0\u00a0We do not agree with him however to &#8216; at the order made by\u00a0 the Governor-General\u00a0 in the present case under section 943)\u00a0 of the Government of India Act is a mere executive order.\u00a0 Part IV\u00a0 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which begins\u00a0 with section\u00a0 94, deals with Chief Commissioners&#8217;\u00a0 Provinces\u00a0 and sub-section\u00a0 (3)\u00a0 lays\u00a0 down\u00a0 how\u00a0 a\u00a0 Chief\u00a0\u00a0 Commissioner&#8217;s Province\u00a0 shall be administered.\u00a0 It provides that it\u00a0 shall be\u00a0 administered\u00a0 by the Governor-General acting\u00a0 through\u00a0 a Chief\u00a0 Commissioner\u00a0 to such extent as he\u00a0 thinks\u00a0 fit.\u00a0\u00a0 An order\u00a0 made\u00a0 by\u00a0 the Governor-General\u00a0 under\u00a0 section\u00a0 94(3) investing\u00a0 the\u00a0 Chief\u00a0 Commissioner\u00a0 with-the\u00a0 authority\u00a0 to administer\u00a0 a province is really in the nature of\u00a0 a\u00a0 legis- lative provision which defines the rights and powers of\u00a0 the Chief\u00a0 Commissioner\u00a0 in respect to that\u00a0 province.\u00a0\u00a0 In\u00a0 our opinion\u00a0 such order comes within the purview of article\u00a0 372 of\u00a0 the Constitution and being &#8220;a law in force&#8221;\u00a0 immediately before the commencement of the 747<\/p>\n<p>Constitution would continue to be in force under clause\u00a0 (1) of the article.\u00a0 Agreeably to this view it must also be held that\u00a0 such\u00a0 order is capable of adaptation to\u00a0 bring\u00a0 it\u00a0 in accord\u00a0 with the Constitutional provisions under clause\u00a0 (2) of\u00a0 article 372 and this is precisely what has been done\u00a0 by the\u00a0 Adaptation\u00a0 of Laws Order, 1950.\u00a0 Paragraph 26\u00a0 of\u00a0 the Order runs as follows: &#8220;Where any rule, order or other instrument was in force under any provision of the Government of India Act, 1935, or under\u00a0\u00a0 any \u00a0\u00a0Act\u00a0 amending\u00a0 or\u00a0 supplementing\u00a0\u00a0 that\u00a0\u00a0 act, immediately before the appointed day, and such provision\u00a0 is re-enacted\u00a0\u00a0 with\u00a0\u00a0 or\u00a0\u00a0 without\u00a0\u00a0 modifications\u00a0\u00a0 in\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the Constitution,\u00a0 the said rule, order or instrument shall,\u00a0 so far\u00a0 as\u00a0 applicable,\u00a0 remain in\u00a0 force\u00a0 with\u00a0 the\u00a0 necessary modifications\u00a0 as\u00a0 from the appointed day as if\u00a0 it\u00a0 were\u00a0 a rule, order or instrument of the appropriate kind duly\u00a0 made by the appropriate authority under the said provision of the Constitution, and may be varied or revoked accordingly.&#8221; Thus\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 order\u00a0 made\u00a0 under\u00a0 section\u00a0 94(3)\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the Government\u00a0 of India Act should be reckoned now as an\u00a0 order made under article 239 of the Constitution and we are unable to\u00a0 agree\u00a0 with\u00a0 Mr.\u00a0 Chatterjee\u00a0 that\u00a0 it\u00a0 was\u00a0 beyond\u00a0 the competence of the President under clause (2) of article\u00a0 372 to\u00a0 make\u00a0 the adaptation order mentioned above.\u00a0\u00a0 The\u00a0 first contention of Mr. Chatterjee therefore fails.<\/p>\n<p>Coming\u00a0 now to the second point.\u00a0 Mr. Chatterjee\u00a0 points out\u00a0 that the preamble to the Minimum Wages Act as\u00a0 well\u00a0 as its\u00a0 title\u00a0 indicate\u00a0 clearly\u00a0 that\u00a0 the\u00a0 intention\u00a0 of\u00a0 the Legislature\u00a0 was\u00a0 to\u00a0 provide for fixing\u00a0 minimum\u00a0 wages\u00a0 in certain\u00a0 employments only and that the Legislature\u00a0 did\u00a0 not intend\u00a0 that\u00a0 all employments should be brought\u00a0 within\u00a0 the purview of the Act.\u00a0 The schedule attached to the Act\u00a0 gives a\u00a0 list\u00a0 of\u00a0 the employments and it is\u00a0 in\u00a0 respect\u00a0 to\u00a0 the scheduled\u00a0 employments\u00a0 that\u00a0 the minimum wages\u00a0 are\u00a0 to\u00a0 be fixed.\u00a0 Under section 27 of the Act however&#8217; power has\u00a0 been given to the &#8220;appropriate Government&#8221; to add to either\u00a0 part of the schedule any employment in respect to which it is\u00a0 of opinion\u00a0 that\u00a0 minimum\u00a0 wages\u00a0 shall\u00a0 be\u00a0 fixed\u00a0 by\u00a0\u00a0 giving notification in a particular manner, and 748<\/p>\n<p>thereupon \u00a0the\u00a0 schedule shall, in its\u00a0 application\u00a0 to\u00a0 the State,\u00a0 be deemed to be amended accordingly.\u00a0 It\u00a0 is\u00a0 argued that\u00a0 the\u00a0 Act\u00a0 nowhere\u00a0 formulates\u00a0 a\u00a0 legislative\u00a0\u00a0 policy according\u00a0 to which an employment shall be chosen for\u00a0 being included\u00a0\u00a0 in\u00a0 the\u00a0 schedule.\u00a0\u00a0 There\u00a0 are\u00a0\u00a0 no\u00a0\u00a0 principles prescribed and no standard laid down which could furnish\u00a0 an intelligent\u00a0 guidance\u00a0 to the\u00a0 administrative\u00a0 authority\u00a0 in making\u00a0 the selection.\u00a0 The matter is left entirely\u00a0 to\u00a0 the discretion\u00a0 of the &#8220;appropriate Government&#8221; which can\u00a0 amend the\u00a0 schedule\u00a0 in any way it likes and\u00a0 such\u00a0 delegation\u00a0 of power virtually amounts to a surrender by the Legislature of its essential legislative function and cannot be held valid. There\u00a0 is undoubtedly an element of delegation\u00a0 implied in\u00a0 the\u00a0 provision\u00a0 of\u00a0 section\u00a0 27\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 Act,\u00a0 for\u00a0 the Legislature\u00a0 in a sense, authorises another body,\u00a0 specified by\u00a0 it,\u00a0 to do something which it might do itself\u00a0 But\u00a0 such delegation,\u00a0 if it can be so called at all, does not in\u00a0 the circumstances\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 present\u00a0 case appear\u00a0 to\u00a0 us\u00a0 to\u00a0 be unwarranted\u00a0 and unconstitutional.\u00a0 It was said by\u00a0 O&#8217;Connor J.\u00a0 of the High Court of Australia in the case of Baxter\u00a0 v. Ah Way (1): &#8220;The aim of all legislatures is to project their minds as far as possible into the future, and to provide in terms\u00a0 as general as possible for all contingencies likely to arise in the\u00a0 application\u00a0 of\u00a0 the law.\u00a0 But it is\u00a0 not\u00a0 possible\u00a0 to provide\u00a0\u00a0 specifically\u00a0\u00a0 for\u00a0 all\u00a0 cases\u00a0\u00a0 and,\u00a0\u00a0 therefore, legislation\u00a0 from the very earliest times, and\u00a0 particularly in\u00a0\u00a0 modern\u00a0 times,\u00a0 has\u00a0 taken\u00a0 the\u00a0 form\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 conditional legislation,\u00a0 leaving\u00a0 it\u00a0 to some\u00a0 specified\u00a0 authority\u00a0 to determine\u00a0 the\u00a0 circumstances\u00a0 in which\u00a0 the\u00a0 law\u00a0 shall\u00a0 be applied, or to what its operation shall be extended, or\u00a0 the particular\u00a0 class of persons or goods to which it\u00a0 shall\u00a0 be applied.&#8221; The facts of this Australian case, in material features, bear\u00a0 a\u00a0 striking resemblance to those of the\u00a0 present\u00a0 one. The question raised in that case related to the validity\u00a0 of certain\u00a0 provisions\u00a0 of the Customs Act of\u00a0 1901.\u00a0\u00a0 The\u00a0 Act prohibited\u00a0 the\u00a0 importation\u00a0 of certain\u00a0 goods\u00a0 which\u00a0 were specifically mentioned and then gave power to the\u00a0 Governor- General in Council to include, by (1)\u00a0 8 C.L.R. 626 at 637. 749<\/p>\n<p>Proclamation,\u00a0 other goods also within the prohibited\u00a0 list. The\u00a0 validity of the provision was challenged on the\u00a0 ground of\u00a0 its being an improper delegation of legislative\u00a0 powers. This\u00a0 contention was repelled and it was held that this\u00a0 was not\u00a0 a\u00a0 case\u00a0 of\u00a0 delegation of\u00a0 legislative\u00a0 power\u00a0 but\u00a0 of conditional legislation Of the type which was held valid\u00a0 by the\u00a0 Privy Council in the case of Reg v. Burah (1).\u00a0 It\u00a0 can indeed be pointed out that in Burah&#8217;s case what was left\u00a0 to the\u00a0\u00a0 Lieutenant\u00a0 Governor\u00a0 was\u00a0 the\u00a0 power\u00a0 to\u00a0 apply\u00a0\u00a0 the provisions\u00a0 of an Act to certain territories at\u00a0 his\u00a0 option and\u00a0 these\u00a0 territories to which the Act could\u00a0 be\u00a0 extended were\u00a0 also specified in the Act.\u00a0 The Legislature\u00a0 could\u00a0 be said\u00a0 therefore to have applied its mind to the question\u00a0 of the\u00a0 application of the law to particular places and it\u00a0 was left to the executive only to determine when the laws\u00a0 would be\u00a0 made operative in those places.\u00a0 According to\u00a0 the\u00a0 High Court of Australia the same principle would apply even\u00a0 when the\u00a0 executive\u00a0 is given power to determine\u00a0 to\u00a0 what\u00a0 other persons\u00a0 or\u00a0 goods the law shall be extended\u00a0 besides\u00a0 those specifically\u00a0 mentioned therein.\u00a0 Whether a\u00a0 provision\u00a0 like this strictly comes within the description of what is called &#8220;conditional\u00a0\u00a0 legislation&#8221; is\u00a0 not\u00a0 very\u00a0 material.<\/p>\n<p>The question\u00a0 is, whether it exceeds the limits\u00a0 of\u00a0 permissible delegation.\u00a0 As was said by O&#8217;Connor J. himself in the above case, when a Legislature is given plenary power to legislate on a particular subject there must also be an implied\u00a0 power to\u00a0 make laws incidental to the exercise of such power.\u00a0\u00a0 It is\u00a0 a\u00a0 fundamental\u00a0 principle\u00a0 of\u00a0 constitutional\u00a0 law\u00a0 that everything necessary to the exercise of a power is\u00a0 included in\u00a0 the grant of the power.\u00a0 A Legislature cannot\u00a0 certainly strip itself of its essential functions and vest the same on an extraneous authority.\u00a0 The primary duty of law making has to be discharged by the Legislature itself\u00a0 but\u00a0 delegation may be resorted to as a subsidiary or an ancillary\u00a0 measure. Mr. Chatterjee\u00a0 contends\u00a0 that\u00a0 the\u00a0 essential\u00a0 legislative function\u00a0 is to lay down a policy and to make it\u00a0 a\u00a0 binding rule\u00a0 of conduct.\u00a0 This legislative policy, he says, is\u00a0 not discernible anywhere in the (1)\u00a0 3 App.\u00a0 Cas. 889. 96 750<\/p>\n<p>Provisions of this Act and consequently there is no standard or\u00a0 criterion to guide the administrative authority\u00a0 in\u00a0 the exercise of the subsidiary legislative powers.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 We do\u00a0 not think that this is the correct view to take. The legislative policy\u00a0 is apparent on the face\u00a0\u00a0 of the present\u00a0 enactment. What\u00a0 it aims at is the statutory fixation of minimum\u00a0 wages with a view to obviate the chance of exploitation of labour. The\u00a0 Legislature undoubtedly intended to apply this Act\u00a0 not to\u00a0 all\u00a0 industries but to those industries\u00a0 only\u00a0 where\u00a0 by reason of unorganized labour or want of proper\u00a0 arrangements for\u00a0 effective regulation of wages or for other\u00a0 causes\u00a0 the wages\u00a0 of labourers in a particular industry were very\u00a0 low. It is with an eye to these facts that the list of trades has been\u00a0 drawn up in the schedule attached to the Act\u00a0 but\u00a0 the list\u00a0 is not an exhaustive one and it is the policy\u00a0 of\u00a0 the Legislature\u00a0 not\u00a0 to lay down at once and for\u00a0 all\u00a0 time\u00a0 to which\u00a0 industries the Act should be applied.\u00a0 Conditions\u00a0 of labour vary under different circumstances and from State\u00a0 to State and the expediency of including a particular trade\u00a0 or industry within the schedule depends upon a variety of facts which\u00a0 are\u00a0 by\u00a0 no\u00a0 means uniform\u00a0 and\u00a0 which\u00a0 can\u00a0 best\u00a0 be ascertained\u00a0 by\u00a0 the person who is placed in charge\u00a0 of\u00a0 the administration\u00a0 of a particular State.\u00a0 It is to\u00a0 carry\u00a0 out effectively\u00a0 the\u00a0 purpose of this enactment that\u00a0 power\u00a0 has been\u00a0 given to the &#8220;appropriate Government&#8221; to decide,\u00a0 with reference to local conditions, whether it is desirable\u00a0 that minimum\u00a0 wages\u00a0 should be fixed in regard\u00a0 to\u00a0 a\u00a0 particular trade or industry which is not already included in the list. We do not think that in enacting section 27 the\u00a0 Legislature has\u00a0 in\u00a0 anyway stripped itself of its essential\u00a0 powers\u00a0 or assigned\u00a0 to\u00a0 the administrative authority anything\u00a0 but\u00a0 an accessory or subordinate power which was deemed necessary to carry out the purpose and the policy of the Act.\u00a0 The second contention of Mr. Chatterjee cannot therefore succeed.<\/p>\n<p>The third and the last point raised by Mr. Chatterjee is\u00a0 directed\u00a0 against\u00a0 the notification of\u00a0 the\u00a0 Chief\u00a0 Com- missioner by\u00a0 which he extended the term\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 Advisory Committee\u00a0 till the 20th of September, 1952.\u00a0 It\u00a0 is\u00a0 argued that the term of the committee, as originally 751 fixed,\u00a0 expired on the 16th of July, 1952, and on\u00a0 and\u00a0 from the\u00a0 17th\u00a0 of July all the members of the\u00a0 committee\u00a0 became functus\u00a0\u00a0 officio.\u00a0\u00a0 The\u00a0 Commissioner\u00a0 therefore\u00a0 was\u00a0\u00a0 not competent\u00a0 to\u00a0 give a fresh lease of life to\u00a0 the\u00a0 committee which was already dead.\u00a0 We do not think that there is\u00a0 much substance\u00a0 in this contention.\u00a0 Rule 3 of the\u00a0 rules\u00a0 framed under\u00a0 section\u00a0 30 of the Act expressly lays down\u00a0 that\u00a0 the State\u00a0 Government may fix the term of the committee when\u00a0 it is\u00a0 constituted\u00a0 and\u00a0 may from time to\u00a0 time\u00a0 extend\u00a0 it\u00a0 as circumstances require.\u00a0 The State Government had therefore a right to extend the term of the committee in such way as\u00a0 it liked.\u00a0\u00a0 The only question is whether it could do\u00a0 so\u00a0 after the\u00a0 period\u00a0 originally\u00a0 fixed\u00a0 had come\u00a0 to\u00a0 an\u00a0 end.\u00a0\u00a0 Mr. Chatterjee\u00a0 relied, in this connection,. upon certain\u00a0 cases which held that the Court could not grant extension of\u00a0 time in\u00a0 an arbitration proceeding after the award was filed\u00a0 and an award made after the prescribed period is a nullity.\u00a0\u00a0 In our\u00a0 opinion\u00a0 this\u00a0 analogy is not at\u00a0 all\u00a0 helpful\u00a0 to\u00a0 the appellants in the present case.\u00a0 It is not disputed that the committee did not function at all and did no work after\u00a0 the 16th of July, 1952, and before the 21st of August next\u00a0 when its term was extended.\u00a0 No report was submitted during\u00a0 this period and there was no extension of time granted after\u00a0 the submission\u00a0 of the report.\u00a0 Assuming that the order\u00a0 of\u00a0 the 21st \u00a0August, 1952, could not revive a committee\u00a0 which\u00a0 was already\u00a0 dead,\u00a0 it\u00a0 could\u00a0 certainly\u00a0 be\u00a0 held\u00a0 that\u00a0 a\u00a0 new committee\u00a0 was\u00a0 constituted on that date and even\u00a0 then\u00a0 the report\u00a0 submitted\u00a0 by it would be a perfectly\u00a0 good\u00a0 report. Quite\u00a0 apart from this, it is to be noted that\u00a0 a\u00a0 committee appointed\u00a0 under\u00a0 section 5 of the Act is only\u00a0 an\u00a0 advisory body\u00a0 and that the Government is not bound to accept any\u00a0 of its\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 recommendations.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Consequently,\u00a0 procedural irregularities of this character could not vitiate the final report\u00a0 which\u00a0 fixed\u00a0 the minimum wages.\u00a0\u00a0 In\u00a0 our\u00a0 opinion, neither\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 contentions raised\u00a0 in\u00a0 support\u00a0 of\u00a0 these appeals\u00a0 can succeed and both the appeals\u00a0 therefore\u00a0 should fail and stand dismissed with costs.<\/p>\n<p>Appeals dismissed. 752<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Minimum Wages Act Petitioner The Edward Mills Co Ltd Beawar And Others Vs Respondent The State Of Ajmer And Another DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/10\/1954 &nbsp; BENCH: MUKHERJEA, B.K. BENCH: MUKHERJEA, B.K. AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA MAHAJAN, MEHAR CHAND (CJ) BOSE, VIVIAN JAGANNADHADAS, B. \u00a0CITATION: 1955 AIR\u00a0\u00a0 25\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1955 SCR\u00a0 (1) 735 CITATOR INFO R 1960 SC &#8230; <a title=\"Minimum Wages Act Case Law The Edward Mills Co Ltd Beawar And Others  Vs Respondent The State Of Ajmer\" class=\"read-more\" href=\"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/minimum-wages-act\/\" aria-label=\"More on Minimum Wages Act Case Law The Edward Mills Co Ltd Beawar And Others  Vs Respondent The State Of Ajmer\">Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":""},"categories":[4928],"tags":[],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29883"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29883"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29883\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29883"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29883"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29883"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}