{"id":29891,"date":"2013-06-25T12:44:21","date_gmt":"2013-06-25T07:14:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/?p=29891"},"modified":"2013-06-25T13:18:40","modified_gmt":"2013-06-25T07:48:40","slug":"minimum-wages-act-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/minimum-wages-act-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Case Laws Minimum Wages Act Madhya Pradesh Mineral Industry association Vs Respondent The Regional Labour Commissioner Jabalpur"},"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-69e48eaf2807b\" 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-69e48eaf2807b\"><\/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-2\/#petitioner-madhya-pradesh-mineral-industry-association\" title=\"Petitioner: Madhya Pradesh Mineral Industry association\">Petitioner: Madhya Pradesh Mineral Industry association<\/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-2\/#vs-respondent-the-regional-labour-commissioner-jabalpur-and-others\" title=\"Vs Respondent The Regional Labour Commissioner Jabalpur And Others\">Vs Respondent The Regional Labour Commissioner Jabalpur And Others<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center;\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"petitioner-madhya-pradesh-mineral-industry-association\"><\/span>Petitioner: Madhya Pradesh Mineral Industry association<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center;\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"vs-respondent-the-regional-labour-commissioner-jabalpur-and-others\"><\/span>Vs Respondent The Regional Labour Commissioner Jabalpur And Others<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><b>DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/04\/1960<\/b><\/p>\n<p><b>\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n<p><b>BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. <\/b><\/p>\n<p><b>BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. WANCHOO, K.N. GUPTA, K.C. DAS<\/b><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>CITATION:<\/strong> 1960 AIR 1068\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a01960 SCR\u00a0 (3) 476 CITATOR INFO : F \u00a01966 SC 189\u00a0 (10) R\u00a0 1972 SC1177\u00a0 (5,12,15,20)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><b>ACT:<\/b> Minimum Wages, Fixation of-Notification by State Government prescribing\u00a0 minimum\u00a0 rates for stone-breaking\u00a0 or\u00a0 stone- crushing in mines &#8211; Validity &#8211; Minimum Wages Act, 1948\u00a0 (11 of 1948), SS. 5 (2), 27, Sch., Part 1 item 8.<\/p>\n<p><b>HEADNOTE:<\/b> The Madhya Pradesh Government issued a notification under s. 5\u00a0 (2)\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 Minimum\u00a0 Wages\u00a0 Act,\u00a0 1948\u00a0 (II\u00a0 of\u00a0 1948), prescribing 477 the minimum rates of wages for employment in stone\u00a0 breaking and\u00a0 stone\u00a0 crushing\u00a0 operations\u00a0 carried\u00a0 on\u00a0 in\u00a0 mines\u00a0 in exercise\u00a0 of the authority delegated to it by the\u00a0 President by\u00a0 a notification under Art. 258 of the Constitution.\u00a0\u00a0 The appellant\u00a0 company,\u00a0 engaged in manganese\u00a0 mining\u00a0 industry, challenged\u00a0 the validity of the said notification by a\u00a0 writ petition\u00a0 filed in the High Court and its case was that\u00a0 the said\u00a0 notification was ultra vires s. 5(2) of the Act.\u00a0\u00a0 The High\u00a0 Court\u00a0 found against the appellant\u00a0 and\u00a0 rejected\u00a0 the petition.\u00a0\u00a0 The\u00a0 question for determination in\u00a0 the\u00a0 appeal, therefore,\u00a0 was whether item 8 in Part 1 of the Schedule\u00a0 to the\u00a0 Act,\u00a0 properly construed, included stone\u00a0 breaking\u00a0 and stone crushing operations in a mining industry: Held,\u00a0 that item 8 in Part 1 of the Schedule to the\u00a0 Minimum Wages\u00a0 Act, 1948, was not intended to cover the breaking\u00a0 or crushing of stones incidental to mining operations and\u00a0 must be\u00a0 limited to stone breaking and stone crushing\u00a0 employment in\u00a0 quarries.\u00a0\u00a0 The impugned\u00a0 notification\u00a0 was,\u00a0 therefore, ultra vires s. 5(2) of the Act and could not be enforced. It\u00a0 would,\u00a0 however,\u00a0 be open to the Government,\u00a0 if\u00a0 it\u00a0 so desired, to achieve the object it had in view in issuing the impugned \u00a0notification\u00a0 by adding appropriate items\u00a0 to\u00a0 the Schedule in exercise of its power under s. 27 of the Act : Held,\u00a0 further, that it was not necessary for the\u00a0 appellant to\u00a0 challenge the vires of the Presidential notification\u00a0 in the\u00a0 first\u00a0 instance\u00a0 in\u00a0 order that\u00a0 he\u00a0 might\u00a0 impugn\u00a0 the notification in question. A. Thangal\u00a0 Kunju\u00a0 Musaliar\u00a0 v.\u00a0 M.\u00a0 Venkitachalam\u00a0 Potti, [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1196, referred to,<\/p>\n<p><b>JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:<\/b> Civil Appeal No. 389 of 1959. Appeal\u00a0 from the judgment and order dated October 25,\u00a0 1957, of\u00a0 the Bombay High Court at Nagpur in Misc.\u00a0\u00a0 Petition No. 476 of 1956. A.\u00a0\u00a0 S. Bobde and Ganpat Rai, for the appellant. H.\u00a0\u00a0 J. Umrigar K. L. Hathi and R. H. Dhebar, for respondent No. 2. 1960.\u00a0 April 7. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-This appeal arises -from a writ\u00a0 petition filed\u00a0 by\u00a0 the appellant, Madhya\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Pradesh\u00a0 Mineral\u00a0 Industry Association, in which the appellant challenged the\u00a0 validity of\u00a0 the notification\u00a0 issued by the\u00a0 Madhya\u00a0 Pradesh\u00a0 State Government\u00a0 on March 30, 1952, under S. 5(2) of the\u00a0 Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (11 of 1948) (hereinafter called the Act). The High Court of Bombay at Nagpur dismissed the appellant&#8217;s petition but has granted the appellant 61 478<\/p>\n<p>a\u00a0 certificate\u00a0 of\u00a0 fitness\u00a0 under\u00a0 Art.133(1)(c)\u00a0 of\u00a0 the Constitution. It\u00a0 is with the said\u00a0 certificate\u00a0 that the present appeal has been brought to this Court. The\u00a0 appellant\u00a0 is a non-profit making\u00a0 company limited\u00a0 by guarantee and registered under s. 26 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913.\u00a0 It has been formed with the object of protecting and\u00a0 promoting the interest of its members-shareholders who are\u00a0 engaged\u00a0 in the mining industry by all\u00a0 legitimate and constitutional means.\u00a0 It appears that under Art. 258 of the Constitution\u00a0 the\u00a0 President of India\u00a0 by\u00a0 Notification No. S.R.O.\u00a0 2052\u00a0 published on\u00a0 December\u00a0 11,\u00a0 1951,\u00a0 entrusted Governments\u00a0 of . certain States including\u00a0 Madhya\u00a0 Pradesh with\u00a0 their consent the functions of the Central Government under \u00a0the\u00a0 Act in so far as such functions\u00a0 relate\u00a0 to the fixation\u00a0 of minimum rates of wages in respect of employees employed\u00a0 in stone-breaking or in stone-crushing\u00a0 operations carried on in mines situated within their respective States. Pursuant to\u00a0 the\u00a0 said\u00a0 delegation the Madhya Pradesh Government\u00a0 issued the impugned notification\u00a0 purporting\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 to act\u00a0 under\u00a0 s.\u00a0 5(2)\u00a0 of the\u00a0 Act.\u00a0\u00a0 This\u00a0 notification has prescribed\u00a0 the minimum rates of wages\u00a0 for\u00a0 employment\u00a0 in stone-breaking or in stone-crushing operations<\/p>\n<p>carried on in mines.\u00a0 The rates thus prescribed were inclusive of dearness allowance or compensatory cost of living allowance. The\u00a0\u00a0 Regional\u00a0 Labour\u00a0 Commissioner\u00a0\u00a0 (Central),\u00a0\u00a0 Nagpur, Respondent\u00a0 1, wrote to the appellant for the first time\u00a0 on June\u00a0 20,\u00a0 1956, stating that the State of\u00a0 Madhya\u00a0 Pradesh, Respondent\u00a0 2, had considered the question whether\u00a0 the Act was applicable to the manganese mining industry and had come to the conclusion that it was so applicable; that is why the appellant&#8217;s members were asked by respondent 1 to\u00a0 implement the\u00a0 Act within a fortnight from the receipt of his\u00a0 letter. The\u00a0 appellant made several representations to respondent\u00a0 1 urging that the Act was inapplicable to the manganese mining industry;\u00a0 nevertheless respondent 1 threatened large-scale prosecution of the appellant&#8217;s members on the basis that the Act applied to them, and its provisions bad been contravened by them. The appellant was thus driven to file the 479 present<\/p>\n<p>petition because it alleged that it had\u00a0 no\u00a0 alter- native\u00a0 remedy, at any rate equally speedy and\u00a0 efficacious, and so it was urged on its behalf that the High Court should issue\u00a0 a writ quashing the impugned notification\u00a0 as\u00a0 ultra vires.\u00a0 In its petition the appellant had also alleged\u00a0 that the notification issued by the President of India under Art. 258\u00a0 cannot\u00a0 fasten upon the manganese mining\u00a0 industry the character of employment in stone-breaking or\u00a0 stone-crushing and\u00a0 if that was the object of the said notification it was invalid.<\/p>\n<p>The respondents disputed the correctness of the appellant&#8217;s contention\u00a0 that the impugned notification is\u00a0 invalid.\u00a0 It was\u00a0 urged\u00a0 on their behalf that any\u00a0 industry\u00a0 wherein the workers are employed in operations involving\u00a0 stone-breaking or stone-crushing is governed by the Act.\u00a0 In their\u00a0 written statement\u00a0 they described\u00a0 the\u00a0 details\u00a0 about\u00a0 the\u00a0 mining operations\u00a0 and contended that the mining of\u00a0 manganese ore mainly consists of development work or the removal of\u00a0 over- burden, breaking of big mineral stones like boulder ore\u00a0 or bed\u00a0 ore to manageable sizes, dressing of\u00a0 ores\u00a0 to\u00a0 remove impurities,\u00a0 etc.\u00a0\u00a0 According\u00a0 to\u00a0 the\u00a0 respondents,\u00a0 having regard\u00a0 to the nature of the manganese mining\u00a0 industry the Act\u00a0\u00a0 applied\u00a0 to\u00a0 the\u00a0 stone-breaking\u00a0 or\u00a0\u00a0 stone-crushing operations connected with it.<\/p>\n<p>The\u00a0 High Court has accepted the respondent&#8217;s plea\u00a0 and has rejected the appellant&#8217;s prayer that a writ should be issued in its favour prohibiting the respondents from enforcing the provisions\u00a0 of the Act against its members. Unfortunately, on\u00a0 two important\u00a0 points the High\u00a0 Court\u00a0 has\u00a0 misdirected itself.\u00a0 It\u00a0 appears\u00a0 to have\u00a0 assumed\u00a0 that\u00a0 the\u00a0 impugned notification has added an entry in the Schedule to the\u00a0 Act, and\u00a0 has observed that as a result of the said addition the provisions\u00a0 of the Act came to be applied to the employment in stone-breaking or in stone-crushing operations carried on in\u00a0 the mines.The High Court has made this observation in setting out the appellant&#8217;s case and it is on the basis\u00a0 of this\u00a0 observation\u00a0 that the High\u00a0 Court\u00a0 has\u00a0 proceeded\u00a0 to examine the validity of the appellant&#8217;s contention.\u00a0 It is, however, clear\u00a0 that\u00a0 the impugned\u00a0 notification\u00a0 does\u00a0 not purport to add any 480 item\u00a0 in<\/p>\n<p>Schedule I and that was also not the case\u00a0 of\u00a0 the appellant.\u00a0\u00a0 Thus the assumption made by the High Court on, both the points is, with respect, erroneous. In\u00a0 its judgment the High Court has also observed\u00a0 that the vires of the impugned notification, though challenged in the petition,\u00a0 was not challenged before -the High Court and \u00a0so the only question that remained for its decision was one of interpretation\u00a0 of\u00a0 the relevant provisions\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 entry introduced\u00a0 by the notification. This statement again\u00a0 does not\u00a0 appear to be entirely correct.\u00a0 The principal,\u00a0 if not the\u00a0 sole, ground on which the appellant sought for\u00a0 a\u00a0 writ from\u00a0 the High Court was that the impugned notification was ultra vires s. 5(2) of the Act. If the validity of the said notification\u00a0 had\u00a0 been conceded by the appellant\u00a0 its\u00a0 writ petition\u00a0 would have immediately become ineffective\u00a0 because if\u00a0\u00a0 the \u00a0notification\u00a0 is\u00a0 valid\u00a0 then\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 question\u00a0\u00a0 of construction of the material entry can present no difficulty whatever.\u00a0\u00a0 In\u00a0 terms the stonebreaking and\u00a0 stone-crushing operations\u00a0 carried\u00a0 on in\u00a0 mines\u00a0 are\u00a0 specified\u00a0 and\u00a0 the appellant\u00a0\u00a0 could\u00a0 not\u00a0 possibly\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 urge\u00a0 that\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 relevant activities\u00a0 carried\u00a0 on by its members did not\u00a0 attract the said\u00a0 description.\u00a0 In view of the fact that the High\u00a0 Court has\u00a0 made a clear statement to the effect that the vires\u00a0 of the impugned notification had not been challenged before\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 it we\u00a0 were at first not inclined to allow Mr. Bobde,\u00a0 for the appellant,\u00a0 to\u00a0 argue that point before us;\u00a0 however,\u00a0 after hearing him and after considering the rest of the record\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 we are satisfied that the statement made in the judgment is not accurate.\u00a0\u00a0 In\u00a0 the\u00a0 petition filed\u00a0 by the\u00a0 appellant\u00a0 the validity of two notifications was challenged; the first was the notification issued by the President of India under Art. 258\u00a0 of the Constitution, and the second\u00a0 is\u00a0 the\u00a0 impugned notification under which proceedings are threatened\u00a0 against the\u00a0 appellant&#8217;s members.\u00a0 It is clear from the record\u00a0 that the\u00a0 appellant did not and could not have pressed\u00a0 its\u00a0 case against the validity of the first notification, but it\u00a0 did press\u00a0 its\u00a0 objection\u00a0 against the validity\u00a0 of the\u00a0 second notification ; and that would be clear from the certificate of fitness granted by the High Court itself.\u00a0 The 481<\/p>\n<p>certificate says that the questions raised by the\u00a0 appellant relate to the applicability of the provisions of the Act to persons employed\u00a0 in stone-breaking\u00a0\u00a0 or\u00a0\u00a0 stone-crushing operations carried on at various manganese mines.\u00a0 Now it is clear\u00a0 that\u00a0 this question can arise only if\u00a0 the appellant seeks\u00a0 to\u00a0 challenge the validity of the\u00a0 notification,\u00a0 not otherwise. It is because the employees in\u00a0 question\u00a0 are, according\u00a0 to the appellant, not employed under any\u00a0 of the items\u00a0 prescribed\u00a0 in\u00a0 the\u00a0 Schedule to the\u00a0 Act\u00a0 that\u00a0 the impugned\u00a0 notification\u00a0 is\u00a0 invalid;\u00a0 in\u00a0 that\u00a0 context\u00a0 the questions\u00a0 posed in the certificate would\u00a0 arise.\u00a0\u00a0 If\u00a0 the notification\u00a0 itself\u00a0 is valid then\u00a0 the\u00a0 solution\u00a0 to\u00a0 the question posed\u00a0 can\u00a0 hardly\u00a0 be\u00a0 regarded\u00a0 as\u00a0 fit\u00a0 for\u00a0\u00a0 a certificate\u00a0 under\u00a0 Art.\u00a0 133(1)(c)\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 Constitution. Besides, the appellant&#8217;s contention against the validity\u00a0 of the\u00a0\u00a0 impugned\u00a0 notification\u00a0 has\u00a0 been set\u00a0 out\u00a0\u00a0 in\u00a0\u00a0 its application\u00a0 for certificate before the High Court\u00a0 and the same\u00a0 has been expressly repeated in the statement\u00a0 of\u00a0 case filed by the appellant before us.\u00a0 We must, therefore,\u00a0 hold that the High Court was in error in assuming that the\u00a0 vires of\u00a0 the impugned\u00a0 notification had\u00a0 been\u00a0 conceded\u00a0 by\u00a0 the appellant\u00a0 before it.\u00a0 This is another serious infirmity in the judgment of the High Court.<\/p>\n<p>As a consequence of the two infirmities in the judgment the approach which the High Court adopted in dealing\u00a0 with\u00a0 the matter\u00a0 has been considerably influenced.\u00a0 It has\u00a0 no\u00a0 doubt considered the meaning of the word &#8221; employment and &#8221;\u00a0 stone &#8221;\u00a0 in connection with the expression stone-breaking &#8221; and\u00a0 &#8221; stone-crushing&#8221;.\u00a0 Even this part of the discussion&#8217; in\u00a0 the judgment seems to assume that the impugned notification has really\u00a0 added one item to the list in the Schedule.\u00a0 It has apparently\u00a0\u00a0 not been\u00a0 realised\u00a0 that\u00a0\u00a0 if\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 present notification\u00a0 purported to make an addition to the items \u00a0in the\u00a0 Schedule there would have been no\u00a0 controversy\u00a0 between the parties.\u00a0 According to the High Court employment\u00a0 should be\u00a0 given its wider sense and should be held to mean\u00a0 &#8221; the action\u00a0 of employing or the state of being employed\u00a0 &#8220;. The High\u00a0 Court has also held that the word &#8221; stone &#8221; should \u00a0be taken to mean &#8221; a piece of rock or hard mineral sub.\u00a0 stance (other than metal) of a small and moderate 482 size&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>The interpretation of the two words adopted by\u00a0 the High\u00a0 Court\u00a0 has been taken by it from\u00a0 the\u00a0 Shorter\u00a0 Oxford Dictionary,\u00a0 and\u00a0 having assigned to the two words\u00a0 the\u00a0 two respective meanings just stated the High Court has held that stone-breaking\u00a0 and stone-crushing operations carried on\u00a0\u00a0 in mines would attract the provisions of the Act. Before\u00a0 dealing with the vires of the impugned\u00a0 notification it\u00a0 would be material to examine the relevant provisions\u00a0 of the\u00a0 Act.\u00a0\u00a0 The Act has been passed to provide\u00a0 for\u00a0 minimum rates of wages in certain employments.\u00a0 Section 2(b) defines the\u00a0 appropriate government as meaning, inter alia,\u00a0 (1) in relation to any scheduled employment carried on by or\u00a0 under the authority of the Central Government or in relation to\u00a0 a mine\u00a0 the\u00a0 Central Government, and (2) in\u00a0 relation\u00a0 to any other\u00a0 scheduled employment the State Government.\u00a0 It\u00a0 would thus\u00a0\u00a0 appear\u00a0 that\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Legislature\u00a0 intended\u00a0\u00a0 that\u00a0\u00a0 the provisions of the Act may in due course be extended to mines and so it has prescribed that in respect thereof the Central Government\u00a0 would\u00a0 be the appropriate\u00a0 Government.\u00a0\u00a0 Section 2(e) defines an employer as meaning, inter alia, any\u00a0 person who\u00a0 employs whether directly or through another \u00a0person\u00a0 or whether on behalf of himself or any other person one or more employees\u00a0 in any scheduled employment in respect\u00a0 of\u00a0 which minimum rates\u00a0 of\u00a0 wages have been fixed\u00a0 under\u00a0 this\u00a0 Act. Section 2(g)\u00a0 -defines scheduled employment as\u00a0 meaning\u00a0 an employment\u00a0 specified\u00a0 in\u00a0 the Schedule or\u00a0 any process\u00a0 or branch\u00a0 of work forming part of such employment. Section\u00a0 3 authorises\u00a0 the appropriate government to fix minimum\u00a0 rates of\u00a0 wages in regard to the employments specified in Parts\u00a0 I and\u00a0 II of\u00a0 the Schedule respectively\u00a0 and\u00a0 prescribes\u00a0 the procedure in that behalf.\u00a0 Section 5 lays down the procedure for the fixing and revising of minimum wages.\u00a0 Section\u00a0 5(2) provides that after following the procedure\u00a0 prescribed\u00a0 by the\u00a0 said\u00a0 section\u00a0 the appropriate\u00a0 government\u00a0 shall\u00a0\u00a0 by notification in the official gazette fix, or as the case may be,\u00a0 revise\u00a0 the minimum rates of wages in respect\u00a0 of\u00a0 each scheduled employment, and unless such notification otherwise provides, it shall come into force on the expiry 483<\/p>\n<p>of\u00a0 three months from the date of its issue.\u00a0 There is\u00a0 only one more section which needs to be mentioned; that is s. 27 which\u00a0 empowers the appropriate government to add to\u00a0 either part\u00a0 of the Schedule any employment in respect of which\u00a0\u00a0 it is\u00a0 of opinion that minimum rates of wages should\u00a0 be\u00a0 fixed under\u00a0 this Act after following the procedure prescribed\u00a0\u00a0 by it, and the section adds that after the notification is thus issued the Schedule shall, in its application to the\u00a0 State, be deemed to be amended accordingly. It\u00a0 is\u00a0 thus\u00a0 clear\u00a0 that the whole scheme\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 Act\u00a0 is intended\u00a0 to work in regard to the employments specified\u00a0 in Part\u00a0 I and Part II of the Schedule and the Legislature has wisely\u00a0 left it to the appropriate government to decide\u00a0 to what\u00a0 employments\u00a0 the Act should be extended\u00a0 and\u00a0 in\u00a0 what areas.\u00a0 Section 5(2) empowers the appropriate government\u00a0 to fix\u00a0 or revise\u00a0 minimum\u00a0 wages in\u00a0 regard\u00a0 to\u00a0 any\u00a0 of\u00a0 the employments in the Schedule to which the Act applies.\u00a0\u00a0 This power can be exercised only if the employment in question is specified\u00a0\u00a0 in\u00a0 the\u00a0 Schedule\u00a0 and\u00a0 the Act\u00a0 is\u00a0\u00a0 therefore applicable\u00a0 to it.\u00a0 Section 27 confers a wider power on the appropriate\u00a0 government, and in exercise of the said\u00a0 power the\u00a0 appropriate\u00a0 government may add an\u00a0 employment\u00a0 to\u00a0 the Schedule.\u00a0 The nature and extent of the-said two powers are thus\u00a0 quite separate and distinct and there can be no\u00a0 doubt that\u00a0 what\u00a0 can be done by the\u00a0 appropriate\u00a0 government\u00a0 in exercise of its power under s. 27 cannot be done by\u00a0 it\u00a0 in exercise of its power under s. 5(2).\u00a0 It is significant that the\u00a0 impugned\u00a0 notification has been issued\u00a0 by the\u00a0 Madhya Pradesh Government by virtue of the powers under s. 5(2)\u00a0 of the Act which have been delegated to it by the President\u00a0\u00a0 in exercise\u00a0 of\u00a0 his\u00a0 authority\u00a0 under Art.\u00a0 258\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 Con- stitution.\u00a0 The main argument urged by Mr. Bobde is that the impugned notification is ultra vires s. 5(2) because\u00a0 stone- breaking and stone-crushing operations in manganese mines do not\u00a0 full under any of the items in Part I of the\u00a0 Schedule. The\u00a0 dispute\u00a0 thus raised really lies within a\u00a0 very\u00a0 narrow compass: \u00a0Does\u00a0 employment in stone-breaking\u00a0 or\u00a0 in\u00a0 stone- crushing\u00a0 operations\u00a0 carried on in mines specified\u00a0 in\u00a0 the impugned notification amount to employment in stone-breaking 484 Schedule \u00a0to\u00a0 the\u00a0 Act?\u00a0\u00a0 It\u00a0 is\u00a0 common\u00a0 ground\u00a0 that\u00a0\u00a0 the employment in question does not fall under any other item in Part I.<\/p>\n<p>It is true that the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act are intended to achieve the object of doing social\u00a0 justice\u00a0 to workmen employed in the scheduled employments by prescribing minimum rates of wages for them, and so in\u00a0 construing\u00a0 the said\u00a0 provisions the court should adopt what\u00a0 is\u00a0 sometimes described\u00a0 as\u00a0 a beneficent rule of\u00a0 construction. If the relevant words are capable of two constructions\u00a0 preference may be given to that construction which helps to sustain the validity \u00a0of\u00a0 the impugned notification; but it\u00a0 is\u00a0 obvious that an occasion for showing preference for one construction rather\u00a0 than the other can legitimately arise only when two constructions are reasonably possible, not otherwise.\u00a0\u00a0 Now, does\u00a0 employment\u00a0 in\u00a0 stone-breaking\u00a0 or\u00a0 stone-crushing\u00a0 as specified\u00a0 in\u00a0 Part\u00a0 I\u00a0 of\u00a0 the Schedule\u00a0 on\u00a0 a\u00a0 reasonable construction\u00a0\u00a0 include\u00a0 stone-breaking\u00a0 or\u00a0\u00a0 stone-crushing operations in a mining industry ? In answering this question it would be necessary to bear in mind that the scheduled em- ployment \u00a0under s. 2(g) covers the employment\u00a0 specified\u00a0 in the\u00a0 Schedule or any process or branch of work forming\u00a0 part of\u00a0 such employment.\u00a0 It is conceded before us by\u00a0 both the parties that\u00a0 the\u00a0 provisions\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 Act\u00a0 apply\u00a0 to\u00a0 the scheduled\u00a0 employments in all branches of their work\u00a0 which may\u00a0 be incidental to the main scheduled\u00a0 employments.\u00a0\u00a0 The impugned\u00a0\u00a0 notification, on the other hand, applies\u00a0 only\u00a0 to the\u00a0 stone-breaking or stone-crushing operations carried\u00a0 on in\u00a0 mines and it does not cover other\u00a0 operations\u00a0 connected with\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0 manganese\u00a0 mining\u00a0 works.\u00a0\u00a0 This\u00a0\u00a0 position\u00a0 is inconsistent\u00a0 with the scheme of the Schedule and that is\u00a0 a point\u00a0 which\u00a0 prima facie is in favour\u00a0 of\u00a0 the appellant&#8217;s contention.<\/p>\n<p>It\u00a0 is, however, urged by Mr. Umrigar, for the\u00a0 respondents, that\u00a0 the word &#8221; employment &#8221; as well as the word &#8221; stone\u00a0 &#8221; used\u00a0 in item 8 should receive their widest denotation, and that,\u00a0 according \u00a0 to him, would\u00a0 include\u00a0 stone-breaking\u00a0 or stone-crushing operations 485 carried on in mines.\u00a0 It is conceded that stone-breaking \u00a0 or stone-crushing operations have to be carried on in regard to the\u00a0 work\u00a0 in manganese mines.\u00a0 Stones are beaten\u00a0 to\u00a0 small pieces\u00a0 by means of a hammer and they are washed and\u00a0 passed through sieves\u00a0 of\u00a0 different meshes\u00a0 before\u00a0 manganese\u00a0 is obtained.\u00a0 When the Schedule refers to\u00a0 the\u00a0 employment\u00a0 of stone-breaking\u00a0 or\u00a0 stone-crushing\u00a0 does\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 it\u00a0 refer\u00a0 to\u00a0 the incidental stone-breaking or stone-crushing in connection\u00a0 with manganese mine operations ?\u00a0 In a\u00a0 chemical or a geological sense stones may include manganese and\u00a0 that is\u00a0 one of the meanings given to the word\u00a0 in\u00a0 the\u00a0 Shorter Oxford Dictionary.\u00a0 On the other hand, the word &#8221; stone &#8221; as popularly understood in ordinary parlance particularly\u00a0 when it\u00a0 is\u00a0 coupled with the word &#8221; breaking &#8221; or &#8221; crushing\u00a0 &#8221; would exclude manganese. \u00a0When we speak of stone-breaking or stone-crushing\u00a0 normally we refer to stone in the\u00a0 sense \u00a0of &#8220;piece\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 rock&#8221;\u00a0 and\u00a0 that\u00a0 would\u00a0\u00a0 exclude\u00a0\u00a0 manganese. Employment in stone-breaking or stone-crushing in this sense would\u00a0 refer to quarry operations.\u00a0 Thus whether or not the word &#8221; stone &#8221; should be understood in the wider sense or in a\u00a0 limited sense must depend upon the context in which\u00a0 the word\u00a0 is used.\u00a0 The intention which is reasonably\u00a0 deducible from\u00a0 the\u00a0 context would decide whether it is\u00a0 the\u00a0 expanded meaning or\u00a0 the\u00a0 limited meaning of the word\u00a0 that\u00a0 can\u00a0 be accepted.\u00a0\u00a0 The same\u00a0 consideration\u00a0 could\u00a0 apply\u00a0 to\u00a0\u00a0 the denotation\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 word &#8221;\u00a0 employment We\u00a0 have\u00a0 carefully considered all the items in the Schedule and have taken into account the general beneficent policy of the Act but we are unable to hold that when item 8 refers to stone-breaking \u00a0or stone-crushing\u00a0 it is intended to cover the breaking or the crushing of\u00a0 stones\u00a0 incidental\u00a0 to\u00a0 the\u00a0 manganese\u00a0 mining operations.\u00a0 The context seems to exclude the application of the\u00a0 wider\u00a0 meaning of the word &#8221; stone &#8221; used\u00a0 in\u00a0 item\u00a0 8. Therefore,\u00a0 our conclusion is that\u00a0 the\u00a0 stone-breaking\u00a0 or stone-crushing operations which are carried on in mines are not\u00a0 included in item 8 in the Schedule; and if that be the true position the impugned notification issued by the\u00a0 State Government under s. 5(2) is ultra vires, 62 486<\/p>\n<p>The\u00a0 High Court has referred to the fact that in describing some items in Part I the word &#8221; any &#8221; has been used\u00a0 whereas the\u00a0 said\u00a0 word has not been used in item 8.\u00a0 For\u00a0 instance, item I refers to employment in any woollen carpet making\u00a0\u00a0 or shawl weaving establishment, whereas item 8 merely refers to employment\u00a0\u00a0 in stone-breaking\u00a0 and\u00a0 stone-crushing.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The absence of\u00a0 the word &#8221; any &#8221; according to\u00a0 the\u00a0 High\u00a0 Court indicates\u00a0 that the\u00a0 word &#8220;stone&#8221; as well\u00a0 as\u00a0 the\u00a0 word\u00a0 &#8221; employment&#8221; had been used in their wide denotation.\u00a0 We are not\u00a0 satisfied that this conclusion is right,.\u00a0 In\u00a0 fact\u00a0\u00a0 it appears to us that if the word &#8221; any&#8221; had been used in\u00a0 item 8\u00a0 it might have helped to make its scope wider; that is\u00a0 to say,\u00a0 if\u00a0\u00a0 item\u00a0 8 bad read as &#8221; employment\u00a0 in\u00a0 any\u00a0 ,stone- breaking\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 or any stone-crushing operations &#8221; it\u00a0 might\u00a0 have tended to make its scope wider. As it stands the entry\u00a0 is, in\u00a0 our opinion,\u00a0 confined\u00a0 to\u00a0 Stone-breaking\u00a0 and\u00a0 stone- crushing employment in quarries and not in mines.<\/p>\n<p>As we have already pointed out a notification under s.\u00a0 5(2) can\u00a0 be issued only in respect of\u00a0 employments\u00a0 which\u00a0 fall under\u00a0 the\u00a0 Schedule.\u00a0 We would, however, like to\u00a0 add\u00a0 that this conclusion merely helps to emphasise the fact that the appropriate government may, and can, act under s. 27 of the Act\u00a0 if it is desired that the employment in\u00a0 mines\u00a0 or\u00a0 in connection\u00a0 with any operations incidental to mining\u00a0 should be\u00a0 governed\u00a0 by the provisions of\u00a0 the\u00a0 Act.\u00a0\u00a0 Section\u00a0 27 empowers\u00a0 the\u00a0 appropriate government to add\u00a0 items\u00a0 to\u00a0 the Schedule and it would be open to the appropriate\u00a0 government to\u00a0 adopt\u00a0 such a course if it is intended\u00a0 to\u00a0 achieve the object with which the impugned notification has been issued. One more point still remains to be considered.\u00a0 Mr.\u00a0 Umrigar attempted\u00a0 to argue that the appellant cannot challenge the vires\u00a0 of the impugned notification without challenging the vires\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 delegation\u00a0 of\u00a0 authority\u00a0 effected\u00a0 by the notification issued by the President of India under Art. 258 of \u00a0\u00a0the\u00a0\u00a0 Constitution.\u00a0\u00a0 The\u00a0 argument\u00a0 is\u00a0 that\u00a0\u00a0 if\u00a0\u00a0 the notification\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0 President is\u00a0 valid\u00a0 then\u00a0 the\u00a0 State Government has merely exercised its authority as a\u00a0 delegate and its validity cannot be challenged in isolation from the principal 487<\/p>\n<p>or parent notification which conferred the authority on the State\u00a0 Government.\u00a0 This contention has obviously\u00a0 not\u00a0 been raised\u00a0 before\u00a0 the\u00a0 High\u00a0 Court.\u00a0\u00a0 Besides,\u00a0 if\u00a0 the\u00a0 State Government\u00a0 purports to take action on the strength\u00a0 of the impugned\u00a0 notification which is invalid it would be open\u00a0 to the appellant to resist the threatened action on the\u00a0 ground that\u00a0 the\u00a0 notification is invalid and\u00a0 no\u00a0 action\u00a0 can\u00a0 be validly taken against the appellant for the contravention of the provisions of the Act.\u00a0 As this Court has observed in A. Thangal Kunju\u00a0 Musaliar v. M. Venkitachalam\u00a0 Potti\u00a0 (1),\u00a0 &#8221; there\u00a0 can be no agency in the matter of a commission\u00a0 of\u00a0 a wrong.\u00a0 The wrong-doer would certainly be liable to be dealt with\u00a0 as a\u00a0 party directly\u00a0 responsible\u00a0 for\u00a0 his\u00a0 wrongful action&#8221;,\u00a0 and it was added that &#8221; on the analogy of a\u00a0 civil wrong\u00a0 the\u00a0 tortfeasor could certainly not\u00a0 protect\u00a0 himself against the liability on the ground of having committed the tort under the directions of his principal, and so the agent could\u00a0 in no event exculpate himself from the liability for the\u00a0 wrongful act done by him and if he is amenable\u00a0 to the jurisdiction\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 High\u00a0 Court\u00a0 the\u00a0 High\u00a0 Court\u00a0\u00a0 could certainly issue an appropriate writ against -him under\u00a0 Art. 226&#8243;.\u00a0\u00a0 By parity of reasoning it would follow that\u00a0 if the impugned\u00a0\u00a0 notification\u00a0 issued by the\u00a0 State\u00a0 Government\u00a0 is ultra\u00a0 vires\u00a0 it cannot\u00a0 fall\u00a0 back\u00a0 upon\u00a0 the\u00a0 President&#8217;s notification in support of the plea that the action which it proposes to take against the appellant would nevertheless be justified.\u00a0 We must accordingly hold that it is open to the appellant to\u00a0 claim\u00a0 a writ against\u00a0 the\u00a0 respondents oven without\u00a0 challenging\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0 vires\u00a0\u00a0 of the\u00a0\u00a0 Presidential notification.<\/p>\n<p>In the result we hold that the impugned notification issued by\u00a0 respondent\u00a0 2 is invalid and cannot be\u00a0 enforced. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the order passed by the\u00a0 High Court\u00a0 set aside and the application for a writ made by the appellant allowed with costs throughout.<\/p>\n<p>Appeal allowed. (1) [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1196,1211. 488<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Minimum Wages Act Petitioner: Madhya Pradesh Mineral Industry association Vs Respondent The Regional Labour Commissioner Jabalpur And Others &nbsp; DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/04\/1960 \u00a0 BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. WANCHOO, K.N. GUPTA, K.C. DAS &nbsp; CITATION: 1960 AIR 1068\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a01960 SCR\u00a0 (3) 476 CITATOR INFO : F \u00a01966 SC 189\u00a0 (10) R\u00a0 1972 SC1177\u00a0 &#8230; <a title=\"Case Laws Minimum Wages Act Madhya Pradesh Mineral Industry association Vs Respondent The Regional Labour Commissioner Jabalpur\" class=\"read-more\" href=\"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/minimum-wages-act-2\/\" aria-label=\"More on Case Laws Minimum Wages Act Madhya Pradesh Mineral Industry association Vs Respondent The Regional Labour Commissioner Jabalpur\">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\/29891"}],"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=29891"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29891\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29891"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29891"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29891"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}