Case Laws Minimum Wages Act<\/p>\n
Unichoyi And Others Vs The State of Kerala<\/p>\n
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 14\/04\/1961<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. <\/strong><\/p>\n BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. SARKAR, A.K. WANCHOO, K.N. GUPTA, K.C. DAS AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA<\/strong><\/p>\n 3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n -66<\/p>\n<\/td>\n -8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n -9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n \u00a0(11,12)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n -14<\/p>\n<\/td>\n -17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n -30<\/p>\n<\/td>\n ACT: Minimum\u00a0 Wages<\/b>-Notification fixing wage\u00a0 structure-If\u00a0 ultra vires-Validity of enactment-Capacity of employer to pay,\u00a0 if relevant consideration-Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (XI of 1948), SS. 5, 9.<\/p>\n HEADNOTE<\/b>: The\u00a0\u00a0 petitioners,\u00a0 representing\u00a0 certain\u00a0 tile\u00a0\u00a0 factories, challenged\u00a0 the validity of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948,\u00a0 as also\u00a0 the\u00a0 notification\u00a0 issued\u00a0 by\u00a0 the\u00a0 Kerala\u00a0 Government prescribing minimum rates of wages in respect of\u00a0 employment in\u00a0 \u00a0the\u00a0 tile\u00a0 industry\u00a0 on\u00a0 the\u00a0 report\u00a0 of\u00a0 a\u00a0\u00a0 committee constituted\u00a0\u00a0 under\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 Act\u00a0 and\u00a0\u00a0 consisting\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the representatives\u00a0 both\u00a0 of the employers\u00a0 and\u00a0 employees\u00a0 who agreed\u00a0\u00a0 with\u00a0\u00a0 its\u00a0 recommendations.\u00a0\u00a0 The\u00a0 case\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the petitioners\u00a0 was that the notification had in\u00a0 effect\u00a0 fixed not\u00a0 minimum\u00a0 wages\u00a0 but fair wages and\u00a0 since\u00a0 neither\u00a0 the committee\u00a0 nor the Government in fixing them had\u00a0 considered the\u00a0 capacity of the employers to pay, the notification\u00a0 was void.<\/p>\n Held,\u00a0 that in view of the decisions of this Court the\u00a0 con- stitutional validity of the Act could no longer be in\u00a0 doubt and\u00a0 any\u00a0 hardship that may be caused to\u00a0 employers\u00a0 by\u00a0 the wages\u00a0 fixed\u00a0 under the Act or their incapacity to\u00a0 pay\u00a0 the same are irrelevant considerations in fixing such wages. 947 The\u00a0 Edward Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Ajmer,\u00a0 [1955]\u00a0 1 S.C.R.\u00a0 735,\u00a0 Bijay\u00a0 Cotton Mills Ltd. v.\u00a0 State\u00a0 of\u00a0 Ajmer, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 752 and M\/s.\u00a0 Crown Aluminium Works v. Their Workmen,[1958] S.C.R. 651, referred to. While, therefore, in fixing the minimum wage nothing can\u00a0 be added\u00a0 to\u00a0 its components that may take it\u00a0 near\u00a0 the\u00a0 lower level\u00a0 of\u00a0 the fair wage, the minimum wage must\u00a0 ensure\u00a0 not only the sustenance of the employee and his family but\u00a0 also preserve\u00a0 his\u00a0 efficiency as a worker and that\u00a0 is\u00a0 what\u00a0 is contemplated\u00a0 by the Act.\u00a0 It is an error to think that\u00a0 the minimum\u00a0 wage\u00a0 is just what a worker requires to\u00a0 cover\u00a0 his physical needs and to keep himself above starvation. There can be no analogy between the Minimum Wages Act\u00a0 which prescribes the economic and industrial minimum and a statute which\u00a0 prescribes its own minimum that approximates more\u00a0 or less to the fair wage standard and so makes it necessary\u00a0 to consider the employer’s capacity to pay. Express\u00a0 Newspapers (P.) Ltd. v. The Union of India,\u00a0 [1959] S.C.R. 12, explained and distinguished.<\/p>\n This Court would ordinarily refuse to consider the merits of the\u00a0 wage\u00a0 structure\u00a0 set\u00a0 up by\u00a0 the\u00a0 Notification\u00a0 on\u00a0 the recommendations\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 committee, \u00a0agreed\u00a0 to\u00a0\u00a0 by\u00a0\u00a0 the representatives\u00a0 of\u00a0 the employers and the\u00a0 employees.\u00a0\u00a0 The fact that wages paid in other industries in the State or\u00a0 in other\u00a0 States\u00a0 in\u00a0 comparable concerns are\u00a0 lower\u00a0 does\u00a0 not necessarily\u00a0\u00a0 show\u00a0\u00a0 that\u00a0 the\u00a0 rates\u00a0 prescribed \u00a0\u00a0by\u00a0\u00a0 the Notification are unduly high. A notification under the Act must apply to all the factories in\u00a0 the State and the State cannot permit or\u00a0 be\u00a0 associated with\u00a0 a\u00a0 departure\u00a0 from\u00a0 it for\u00a0 that\u00a0 would\u00a0 amount\u00a0 to\u00a0 a contravention\u00a0 of SS. 22 and 25 of the Act.\u00a0 If a\u00a0 departure is\u00a0 considered\u00a0 necessary,\u00a0 the proper course\u00a0 would\u00a0 be\u00a0 to withdraw\u00a0 the notification in respect of the area\u00a0 concerned or to reconsider and modify it if necessary.<\/p>\n JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION<\/b>: Petition No. 102 of 1958. Petition\u00a0 under\u00a0 Art. 32 of the Constitution\u00a0 of\u00a0 India\u00a0 for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. M. K. Nambiar, and S. N. Andley, for the petitioners. H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, M.\u00a0 P.\u00a0 Balagavgadhar\u00a0 Menon and\u00a0 Sardar\u00a0 Bahadur,\u00a0 for\u00a0 the respondents. 1961.\u00a0 April 14.\u00a0 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR,\u00a0 J.-The\u00a0 Government of Kerala(\u00a0 appointed\u00a0 a Committee in exercise of its powers 948<\/p>\n conferred\u00a0 by cl. (a) of sub-s. (1) of s. 5 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Act XI of 1948) (hereafter called the Act), to\u00a0 hold\u00a0 enquiries\u00a0 and advise\u00a0 the\u00a0 Government\u00a0 in\u00a0 fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of employment in the\u00a0 tile industry and nominated eight\u00a0 persons to constitute the said Committee\u00a0 under\u00a0 s. 9 of the Act.\u00a0\u00a0 This\u00a0 notification\u00a0 was published on August 14, 1957.\u00a0 The Committee made its report on March 30, 1958.\u00a0 The Government of Kerala then considered the\u00a0 report\u00a0 and\u00a0 issued a notification\u00a0 on\u00a0 May\u00a0 12,\u00a0 1958, prescribing\u00a0 minimum\u00a0 rates\u00a0 of wages as\u00a0 specified\u00a0 in\u00a0 the schedule annexed thereto.\u00a0 This notification was ordered\u00a0 to come\u00a0 into effect on May 26,1958.\u00a0 On that date the\u00a0 present petition was filed under Art. 32 by the nine petitioners who represent\u00a0 six tile factories in Feroke Kozhikode\u00a0 District, challenging the validity of the ‘Act as well as the validity of the notification issued by the Government of Kerala.<\/p>\n The State of Kerala is impleaded as respondent to the petition. The petitioners allege that the minimum wage rates fixed\u00a0 by the\u00a0 notification are very much above the level of what\u00a0 may be\u00a0 properly regarded as minimum wages and it was\u00a0 essential that\u00a0 before\u00a0 the impugned wage rates\u00a0 were\u00a0 prescribed\u00a0 the employers’\u00a0 capacity\u00a0 to pay should\u00a0 have\u00a0 been\u00a0 considered. Since this essential element had not been taken into account at\u00a0 all\u00a0 by the Committee as well as by the\u00a0 respondent\u00a0 the notification\u00a0 is ultra vires and inoperative.\u00a0 According\u00a0 to them\u00a0 the burden imposed by the notification is\u00a0 beyond\u00a0 the financial\u00a0 capacity of the industry in general and of\u00a0 their individual\u00a0 capacity in particular, and this is\u00a0 illustrated by the fact that nearly 62 tile factories in Trichur\u00a0 closed soon after the notification was published.\u00a0\u00a0 The petitioners seek to challenge the validity of the\u00a0\u00a0 Act\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 on\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 several grounds set out by them in clauses (a)\u00a0 to (g) of\u00a0 paragraph 21\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 petition.\u00a0 It is urged that the\u00a0 Act\u00a0 does\u00a0 not define what the minimum wage is to comprise or to comprehend and\u00a0 as such confers arbitrary authority on the\u00a0 appropriate Governments\u00a0 to\u00a0 impose\u00a0 unreasonable\u00a0 restrictions\u00a0 on\u00a0 the employers.\u00a0\u00a0 ‘The\u00a0 law conferring such\u00a0 arbitrary\u00a0 power\u00a0 is violative\u00a0 of Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.\u00a0 Since\u00a0 the Act 949<\/p>\n Empowers the fixation of a wage which may disable or destroy the industry it cannot be said to be reasonable and as\u00a0 such is\u00a0 beyond\u00a0 the\u00a0 purview\u00a0 of\u00a0 Art.\u00a0 19(1)\u00a0 and\u00a0 (6)\u00a0 of\u00a0 the Constitution.\u00a0\u00a0 The\u00a0 Act does not lay\u00a0 down\u00a0 any\u00a0 reasonable procedure\u00a0 in the imposition of restrictions by fixation \u00a0of minimum\u00a0 wage and so authorises any procedure to be\u00a0 adopted which\u00a0 may even violate the principles of\u00a0 natural\u00a0 justice. It is also alleged that the Act is discriminatory in\u00a0 effect inasmuch\u00a0 as\u00a0 it submits some industries\u00a0 to\u00a0 its\u00a0 arbitrary procedure\u00a0 in\u00a0 the matter of fixation of minimum\u00a0 wages\u00a0 and leaves\u00a0 other industries to the more orderly\u00a0 and\u00a0 regulated procedure\u00a0 of the Industrial Disputes Act.\u00a0 It is\u00a0 on\u00a0 these grounds that the validity of the Act is impugned.<\/p>\n The petitioners impugn the validity of the notification also for\u00a0 the\u00a0 same\u00a0 reasons.\u00a0\u00a0 Besides, it\u00a0 is\u00a0 urged\u00a0 that\u00a0 the notification has in effect fixed not minimum wages but\u00a0 fair wages\u00a0 and\u00a0 so\u00a0 it was essential that the\u00a0 capacity\u00a0 of\u00a0 the employers to bear the burden proposed to be imposed ought to have\u00a0 been considered.\u00a0 Failure to consider\u00a0 this\u00a0 essential aspect\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 matter\u00a0 has,\u00a0 it\u00a0 is\u00a0 urged,\u00a0 rendered\u00a0 the notification\u00a0 void.\u00a0 That in substance is the nature of\u00a0 the case set out by the petitioners in their present petition. The\u00a0 respondent has traversed all these allegations.\u00a0 It\u00a0 is urged\u00a0 that\u00a0 the validity of the Act is no\u00a0 longer\u00a0 open\u00a0 to challenge\u00a0 since the question is concluded by the\u00a0 decisions of this Court; and it is alleged that what the\u00a0 notification purports to do is to fix the minimum wage and no more and as such the capacity of the employer to pay such a minimum wage is irrelevant.\u00a0 It is further alleged that decisions of this Court\u00a0 have\u00a0 firmly established the principle\u00a0 that\u00a0 in\u00a0 the matter of fixing minimum wages the capacity of the\u00a0 employer to\u00a0 pay need not be considered and that if any\u00a0 employer\u00a0 is unable\u00a0 to pay what can be regarded as minimum wages to\u00a0 his employees\u00a0 he has no right to carry on his industry.\u00a0 It\u00a0 is further pointed out that out of 18 factories in Feroke\u00a0 only six\u00a0 factories have come to this Court and it\u00a0 is\u00a0 suggested that\u00a0 the\u00a0 grievance made by the petitioners that\u00a0 the\u00a0 wage rates fixed are 950<\/p>\n beyond\u00a0 their\u00a0 capacity\u00a0 is\u00a0 not\u00a0 genuine\u00a0 or\u00a0 honest.\u00a0\u00a0 The respondent\u00a0 also points out that the Committee appointed\u00a0 by it was a representative Committee and its report showed that it had considered the matter very carefully.\u00a0\u00a0 Alternatively it\u00a0 is\u00a0 urged that the\u00a0 report of the said\u00a0 Committee\u00a0 would show\u00a0 that the capacity to pay had not been ignored\u00a0 by\u00a0 the Committee.\u00a0\u00a0 The impact of the minimum wage, rate\u00a0 suggested by\u00a0 it\u00a0 had\u00a0 been considered by the\u00a0 Committee\u00a0 and\u00a0 so\u00a0 the Committee made its recommendations area-wise.\u00a0 In regard\u00a0 to the\u00a0 closure of factories in Trichur the\u00a0 respondent’s\u00a0 case was\u00a0 that the said closure was not the result\u00a0 of\u00a0 financial inability\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 factories to bear\u00a0 the\u00a0 burden\u00a0 but\u00a0 was probably actuated by political motives.\u00a0 The respondent also put in a general plea that in fact all the factories in \u00a0the Kerala\u00a0 ‘State except some of the factories in\u00a0 the\u00a0 Trichur area\u00a0 and\u00a0 one\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 petitioners\u00a0 had\u00a0 implemented\u00a0\u00a0 the notification without any objection or protest; and so it was argued that there was no substance in the grievance made\u00a0 by the\u00a0 petitioners.\u00a0\u00a0 That\u00a0 in\u00a0 brief is\u00a0 the\u00a0 nature\u00a0 of\u00a0 the contentions\u00a0 raised\u00a0 by\u00a0 the\u00a0 respondent\u00a0 in\u00a0 reply\u00a0 to\u00a0 the petitioner’s case.<\/p>\n At\u00a0 this stage it would be relevant to refer briefly to\u00a0 the Committee’s\u00a0 report\u00a0 in\u00a0 the\u00a0 order\u00a0 to\u00a0 find\u00a0 out\u00a0 how\u00a0 the Committee\u00a0 proceeded to discharge its task and what\u00a0 is\u00a0 the nature\u00a0 of its recommendations.\u00a0 The Committee consisted\u00a0 of eight\u00a0\u00a0 members\u00a0\u00a0 three\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0 whom\u00a0\u00a0 were\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 employers’ representatives\u00a0 and\u00a0 three the\u00a0 employees’\u00a0 representatives while the Chairman Mr. V. R. Pillai and Mr. G. S.Pillai, the District Labour Officer, were nominated on the Committee\u00a0 as independent members.\u00a0 The Chairman Mr. Pillai is a M.A.,\u00a0 M. Sc.\u00a0 in\u00a0 Economics\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 London\u00a0 University.\u00a0\u00a0 He\u00a0 is\u00a0 a Professor\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0 Economics\u00a0 in\u00a0 the\u00a0 University\u00a0 College\u00a0\u00a0 at Trivandrum\u00a0 and has had considerable experience inasmuch\u00a0 as he\u00a0 has served on several such Committees in the past.\u00a0\u00a0 The Committee\u00a0 issued a questionnaire to all the tile\u00a0 factories in\u00a0 the State and other persons interested,\u00a0 considered\u00a0 the replies\u00a0 received\u00a0 from\u00a0 them,\u00a0 personally\u00a0 visited\u00a0 certain factories,\u00a0\u00a0 recorded\u00a0 evidence\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 various\u00a0\u00a0 associations representing the 951<\/p>\n tile\u00a0 factories\u00a0 as well as of individuals,\u00a0 and\u00a0 took\u00a0 into account\u00a0 various\u00a0 facts\u00a0 which the\u00a0 Committee\u00a0 thought\u00a0 were relevant.\u00a0\u00a0 The report of the Committee shows that,\u00a0 subject to\u00a0 minor\u00a0 differences disclosed in the\u00a0 minute\u00a0 of\u00a0 dissent filed by Mr. K. Subramonia Iyer and the reply to it filed by Mr.\u00a0 A.\u00a0 Karunakaran, the recommendations of\u00a0 the\u00a0 Committee were\u00a0 unanimous\u00a0 and so prima facie we start with\u00a0 the\u00a0 fact that the recommendations of the Committee were approved\u00a0 not only\u00a0 by\u00a0 the two independent members but they\u00a0 secured\u00a0 the concurrence of the representatives of the employers as\u00a0 well as the employees.<\/p>\n The\u00a0 report\u00a0 of\u00a0 the Committee consists\u00a0 of\u00a0 five\u00a0 chapters. Chapter 1 deals with the development of the tile industry in Kerala, chapter 11 deals with the problem of standardisation in\u00a0 the tile industry, chapter III considers the problem\u00a0 of wage-structure\u00a0 area wise, chapter IV discusses the\u00a0 problem of minimum wage fixation, its principles and procedure,\u00a0 and chapter V records the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee.\u00a0\u00a0 In dealing with the problem of\u00a0 wage\u00a0 structure the Committee has observed that the prevailing wage rates in the tile factories in the State show considerable difference from\u00a0 one\u00a0 centre\u00a0 to another, and that,\u00a0 according\u00a0 to\u00a0 the Committee, is partly due to historical factors and partly to the\u00a0 economic status of the workers in the areas\u00a0 concerned. The\u00a0 Committee\u00a0 formed\u00a0 the opinion that\u00a0 there\u00a0 being\u00a0 very little\u00a0 scope for alternative employment except in low\u00a0 paid agricultural\u00a0 occupations\u00a0 the bargaining\u00a0 position\u00a0 of\u00a0 the workers\u00a0 has\u00a0 all along been very weak and\u00a0 wages\u00a0 too\u00a0 have tended\u00a0 to remain at a relatively low level.\u00a0 It is\u00a0 in\u00a0 the light\u00a0 of\u00a0 this\u00a0 background\u00a0 that\u00a0 the\u00a0 Committee\u00a0 naturally proceeded to consider the problem of the fixation of minimum wage rates.<\/p>\n The Committee has accepted the observation of the Fair Wages Committee that the minimum wage “must provide not merely for the bare subsistence of life but for the preservation of the efficiency\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 workers.” Then\u00a0 it\u00a0 examined\u00a0 the\u00a0 food requirements\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 employee\u00a0 on\u00a0 the\u00a0 basis\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 three consumption\u00a0 units recognized in Dr. Aykroyd’s formula.\u00a0\u00a0 It then adopted 952 the assessment made by the Planning Commission in regard\u00a0 to the\u00a0 requirements\u00a0 of the employees in cotton\u00a0 textiles\u00a0 and placed\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0 employee’s\u00a0 requirement\u00a0\u00a0 at\u00a0 a\u00a0\u00a0 per\u00a0\u00a0 capita consumption of 18 yards per unit, then it took into\u00a0 account the requirement of housing\u00a0 and it held that the\u00a0 additional requirements\u00a0 of workers for fuel, lighting\u00a0 and\u00a0 additional miscellaneous items of expenditure should generally be fixed at\u00a0 20%\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 total\u00a0 wage\u00a0 in\u00a0 cases\u00a0 where\u00a0 the\u00a0 actual percentage\u00a0 has\u00a0 not\u00a0 been\u00a0 found out\u00a0 by\u00a0 a\u00a0 family\u00a0 budget enquiry.\u00a0\u00a0 The\u00a0 Committee\u00a0 was\u00a0 conscious\u00a0 that\u00a0 it\u00a0 had\u00a0 to approach\u00a0 the problem from the point of view of the\u00a0 minimum needs\u00a0 of\u00a0 workers\u00a0 in\u00a0 order\u00a0 to\u00a0 maintain\u00a0 a\u00a0\u00a0 subsistence standard,\u00a0 and so it enumerated the requirements of\u00a0 workers in\u00a0 that behalf as food, clothing, fuel, lighting and\u00a0 other miscellaneous\u00a0 items\u00a0 in\u00a0 which\u00a0 are\u00a0 also\u00a0 included\u00a0\u00a0 rent, education, medical aid and entertainment.\u00a0 On this basis the Committee formulated the weekly food budget of the employee, added\u00a0 to it the requirement of clothing\u00a0 and\u00a0 miscellaneous items.\u00a0\u00a0 According to the Committee the total weekly\u00a0 expen- diture on this basis would be food 13.03, clothing 1.15\u00a0 and miscellaneous\u00a0 2.84,\u00a0 the\u00a0 total being Rs.\u00a0 17.02\u00a0 nP.<\/p>\n The Committee\u00a0 then\u00a0 observed “calculating on the basis\u00a0 of\u00a0 six days per week a worker should get a minimum of Rs. 2.67\u00a0 nP. per\u00a0\u00a0 day\u00a0 to\u00a0 maintain\u00a0 a\u00a0 ‘subsistence\u00a0 plus’\u00a0\u00a0 standard.” Ultimately the Committee recommended that the minimum\u00a0 basic wage of an unskilled worker in the “A” region, viz.,\u00a0 Quilon and Feroke, should be Re. 1. With a cost of living index for the\u00a0 tile\u00a0 Centers\u00a0 at an average figure\u00a0 of\u00a0 400,\u00a0 and\u00a0 the minimum\u00a0 requirements\u00a0 of the workers at Rs. 2.67\u00a0 nP.\u00a0 this basic\u00a0 wage corresponds to 150 in the cost of\u00a0 living\u00a0 index number.\u00a0 As to dearness allowance the Committee\u00a0 recommended that\u00a0 it should be related to the cost of living\u00a0 index\u00a0 and that the dearness allowance should be fixed at the rate of 1 nP.\u00a0 for every two points for all points above\u00a0 200.\u00a0\u00a0 Thus, when\u00a0 the\u00a0 cost of living index is 400 an\u00a0 unskilled\u00a0 worker will get Re. 1 as basic wage and Re. 1 as dearness allowance making\u00a0 a\u00a0 total of Rs. 2. The Committee added that\u00a0 if\u00a0 the rise in the cost of living had to be completely 953<\/p>\n neutralised he should get Rs. 1.67 nP as dearness allowance, but he gets only Re. 1 that is to say 100\/ 167 or 60% of the increase\u00a0 in the cost of living.\u00a0 Therefore, the\u00a0 extent\u00a0 of the neutralisation of the increase in the cost of living\u00a0 is 60%.\u00a0\u00a0 The Committee recognised regional differences and\u00a0 so introduced\u00a0 five Grades classified as A, B, C, D and\u00a0 E\u00a0 for the\u00a0 purpose\u00a0 of fixing the wage structure.\u00a0\u00a0 The\u00a0 Committee hoped that the regional differences recommended by it\u00a0 would enable\u00a0 the\u00a0 backward\u00a0 areas to come\u00a0 up\u00a0 by\u00a0 improving\u00a0 the efficiency\u00a0 of production and marketing so\u00a0 that\u00a0 eventually they will be in a position to pay the same wages as advanced areas.<\/p>\n The notification issued is substantially on the lines of the recommendations made by the Committee.\u00a0 Employees engaged in the\u00a0 tile industry have been categorised and\u00a0 their\u00a0 minimum wage\u00a0 rates\u00a0 have been classified into clauses A\u00a0 to\u00a0 E.\u00a0 In regard to dearness allowance the notification provides\u00a0 that a\u00a0\u00a0 flat\u00a0 rate\u00a0 of\u00a0 dearness\u00a0 allowance\u00a0 for\u00a0\u00a0 all\u00a0\u00a0 workers irrespective\u00a0 of sex or grade shall be paid at the\u00a0 rate\u00a0 of one\u00a0 naya paisa for every two points in the cost\u00a0 of\u00a0 living index\u00a0 in\u00a0 each\u00a0 year\u00a0 in\u00a0 excess\u00a0 of\u00a0 Rs.\u00a0 200.\u00a0\u00a0 Thus\u00a0 the notification\u00a0 purports\u00a0 to prescribe the\u00a0 minimum\u00a0 rates\u00a0 of wages\u00a0 in\u00a0 regard to tile industry in the State; it\u00a0 is\u00a0 the validity of this notification that is impugned before us\u00a0 by the present petition.<\/p>\n Before\u00a0 dealing\u00a0 with the points raised by\u00a0 Mr.\u00a0 Nambiar\u00a0 on behalf\u00a0 of\u00a0 the petitioners it is necessary\u00a0 to\u00a0 refer\u00a0 very briefly to the material provisions of the Act.\u00a0 This Act was passed in 1948, because it was thought expedient to\u00a0 provide for\u00a0 fixing minimum rates of wages in\u00a0 certain\u00a0 employments. Under\u00a0 s. 3 the appropriate Government is empowered\u00a0 to\u00a0 fix mini. mum rates of wages in regard to employments as therein specified,\u00a0 and\u00a0 review\u00a0 the\u00a0 same\u00a0 at\u00a0 such\u00a0 intervals\u00a0\u00a0 as specified\u00a0 by\u00a0 s. 3(1).\u00a0 Section 3(3) contemplates\u00a0 that\u00a0 in fixing or refixing minimum rates of wages different\u00a0 minimum rates\u00a0 of\u00a0 wages\u00a0 may\u00a0 be\u00a0 fixed\u00a0 for\u00a0 different\u00a0\u00a0 scheduled employments, different classes of work in the same scheduled employments, adults, 120 954 adolescents,\u00a0\u00a0 children\u00a0 and\u00a0 apprentices,\u00a0\u00a0 and\u00a0\u00a0 different localities.\u00a0\u00a0 Under s. 4 any minimum rate of wages fixed\u00a0 or revised\u00a0 may, inter alia, consist of a basic rate\u00a0 of\u00a0 wages and a special allowance at a rate to be adjusted, or a basic rate\u00a0 of wages with or without the cost of living\u00a0 allowance and the cash value of the concessions in respect of supplies of\u00a0 essential\u00a0 commodities\u00a0 at\u00a0 concession\u00a0 rates\u00a0 where\u00a0 so authorised\u00a0 or an all-inclusive rate allowing for the\u00a0 basic rate, the cost of living allowance and the cash value of the concessions if any.\u00a0 Section 5 prescribes the procedure\u00a0 for fixing and revising minimum wages.\u00a0 It is under this section that\u00a0 a\u00a0 Committee was appointed by the\u00a0 respondent\u00a0 in\u00a0 the present case.\u00a0 Section 9 makes provision for the composition of the Committee.\u00a0 Such Committees have to consist of\u00a0 equal number of representatives of employers and employees and\u00a0 of independent\u00a0 persons not exceeding. one-third of\u00a0 the\u00a0 total number\u00a0 of members.\u00a0 Section 12(1) imposes on\u00a0 the\u00a0 employer the obligation to pay the minimum rates of wages\u00a0 prescribed under\u00a0 the\u00a0 Act.\u00a0\u00a0 Section 22\u00a0 provides\u00a0 for\u00a0 penalties\u00a0 for offences and s. 22A makes a general provision for punishment of offences not otherwise expressly provided for.\u00a0 Under\u00a0 s. 25\u00a0 any contract or agreement whether made before\u00a0 or\u00a0 after the\u00a0 commencement\u00a0 of this Act which affects\u00a0 an\u00a0 employee’s right\u00a0 to a minimum rate of wages prescribed under\u00a0 the\u00a0 Act shall\u00a0 be null and void so far as it purports to reduce\u00a0 the said\u00a0 minimum\u00a0 rate\u00a0 of\u00a0 wages.\u00a0\u00a0 Section\u00a0 27\u00a0 empowers\u00a0 the appropriate\u00a0\u00a0 Government,\u00a0 after\u00a0 giving\u00a0\u00a0 notification\u00a0\u00a0 as prescribed,\u00a0 to\u00a0 add\u00a0 to either part\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 schedule\u00a0 any employment in respect of which it is of opinion that minimum rates\u00a0 should be fixed, and thereupon the schedule shall\u00a0 be deemed to be amended accordingly in regard to that State. In\u00a0 the case of The Edward Mills Co. Ltd., Beawar & Ors.\u00a0 v. The State of Ajmer (1), the validity of s. 27 of the Act was challenged\u00a0 on\u00a0 the ground of excessive delegation.\u00a0 it\u00a0 was urged that the Act prescribed no principles and laid down no standard which could furnish an intelligent guidance to\u00a0 the administrative (1) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 735. 955<\/p>\n authority\u00a0 in making selection while acting under s. 27\u00a0 and so\u00a0 the\u00a0 matter was left entirely to the discretion\u00a0 of\u00a0 the appropriate\u00a0 Government which can amend the schedule in\u00a0 any way\u00a0 it\u00a0 liked and such delegation virtually amounted\u00a0 to\u00a0 a surrender\u00a0 by the Legislature of its\u00a0 essential\u00a0 legislative function.\u00a0 This contention was rejected by Mukherjea, J., is he\u00a0 then\u00a0 was, who spoke for the Court.\u00a0 The\u00a0 learned\u00a0 Judge observed that the Legislature undoubtedly intended to\u00a0 apply the\u00a0 Act\u00a0 to those industries only where by\u00a0 reason\u00a0 of\u00a0 un- organised\u00a0\u00a0 labour\u00a0 or\u00a0 want\u00a0 of\u00a0 proper\u00a0 arrangements\u00a0\u00a0 for effective regulation of wages or for other causes the\u00a0 wages of\u00a0 labourers\u00a0 in a particular industry were very\u00a0 low.\u00a0\u00a0 He also\u00a0 pointed\u00a0 out\u00a0 that conditions\u00a0 of\u00a0 labour\u00a0 vary\u00a0 under different\u00a0 circumstances\u00a0 and from State to\u00a0 State\u00a0 and\u00a0 the expediency\u00a0 of\u00a0 including at particular\u00a0 trade\u00a0 or\u00a0 industry within\u00a0 the schedule depends upon a variety of\u00a0 facts\u00a0 which are by no means uniform and which can best be ascertained by a person who is placed in charge of the administration of\u00a0 a particular\u00a0 State.\u00a0 That is why the Court concluded that\u00a0 in enacting s. 27 it could not be said that the Legislature had in\u00a0 any\u00a0 way\u00a0 stripped itself of\u00a0 its\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n In\u00a0 the same year another attempt was made to challenge\u00a0 the validity of the Act in Bijay Cotton Mills, Ltd. v. The State of\u00a0 Ajmer (1).\u00a0 This time the crucial sections of\u00a0 the\u00a0 Act, namely, ss. 3, 4 and 5 were attacked, and the challenge\u00a0 was based\u00a0 on the ground that the restrictions imposed\u00a0 by\u00a0 them upon the freedom of contract violated the fundamental\u00a0 right guaranteed\u00a0 under Art. 19(1)(g) of the\u00a0 Constitution.\u00a0\u00a0 This challenge was repelled by Mukherjea, J., as he then was, who again spoke for the Court.\u00a0 The learned Judge held that\u00a0 the restrictions\u00a0 were\u00a0 imposed in the interest of\u00a0 the\u00a0 general public\u00a0 and\u00a0 with a view to carry out one of\u00a0 the\u00a0 directive principles of State policy as embodied in Art. 43 and so the impugned sections (1) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 752. 956 were\u00a0 protected\u00a0 by\u00a0 the terms of cl. (6) of\u00a0 Art.\u00a0 19.\u00a0\u00a0 In repelling\u00a0 the argument of the employers’ inability to\u00a0 meet the\u00a0 burden of the minimum wage rates it was\u00a0 observed\u00a0 that “the\u00a0 employers\u00a0 cannot\u00a0 be heard to complain\u00a0 if\u00a0 they\u00a0 are compelled\u00a0 to\u00a0 pay\u00a0 minimum wages to\u00a0 their\u00a0 labourers\u00a0 even though\u00a0 the\u00a0 labourers\u00a0 on\u00a0 account\u00a0 of\u00a0 their\u00a0 poverty\u00a0 and helplessness\u00a0 are willing to work on lesser wages, and\u00a0 that if individual employers might find it difficult to carry\u00a0 on business\u00a0 on the basis of minimum wages fixed under the\u00a0 Act that\u00a0 cannot be the reason for striking down the law\u00a0 itself as unreasonable.\u00a0 The inability of the employers may in many cases\u00a0 be due entirely to the economic conditions\u00a0 of\u00a0 those employers.”\u00a0 It would thus be seen that these two\u00a0 decisions have\u00a0 firmly established the validity of the Act, and\u00a0 there can\u00a0 no longer be any doubt that in fixing the minimum\u00a0 wage rates\u00a0 as\u00a0 contemplated by the Act the\u00a0 hardship\u00a0 caused\u00a0 to individual\u00a0 employers or their inability to meet the\u00a0 burden has no relevance.\u00a0 Incidentally, it may be pointed out\u00a0 that in dealing with the minimum wage rate,,; intended to be pre- scribed by the Act Mukherjea, J., has in one place\u00a0 observed that the labourers should be secured adequate living\u00a0 wages. In\u00a0 the context it is clear that the learned Judge\u00a0 was\u00a0 not referring\u00a0 to\u00a0 living wages properly so-called\u00a0 but\u00a0 to\u00a0 the minimum\u00a0 wages\u00a0 with which alone the Act is\u00a0 concerned.\u00a0\u00a0 In view of these two decisions we have not allowed Mr.\u00a0 Nambiar to\u00a0 raise any contentions against the validity of\u00a0 the\u00a0 Act. It is true that Mr. Nambiar attempted to argue that\u00a0 certain aspects\u00a0 of\u00a0 the matter on which he wished to rely\u00a0 had\u00a0 not been\u00a0 duly\u00a0 considered by the Court in\u00a0 Bijay\u00a0 Cotton\u00a0 Mills Ltd.’s case (1).\u00a0 In our opinion it is futile to attempt\u00a0 to reopen an issue which is clearly concluded by the\u00a0 decisions of this Court.\u00a0 Therefore, we will proceed to deal with \u00a0the present\u00a0 petition,\u00a0 as we must, on the basis\u00a0 that\u00a0 the\u00a0 Act under\u00a0\u00a0 which\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0 Committee\u00a0 “-as\u00a0\u00a0 appointed\u00a0\u00a0 and\u00a0\u00a0 the notification was ultimately issued is valid. We have already seen what the Act purports to achieve is\u00a0 to prevent exploitation of labour and for (1) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 752. 957<\/p>\n that\u00a0 purpose authorises the appropriate Government to\u00a0 take steps\u00a0 to prescribe minimum rates of wages in the\u00a0 scheduled industries.\u00a0\u00a0 In an under-developed country which faces\u00a0 the problem\u00a0 of\u00a0 unemployment on a very large scale\u00a0 it\u00a0 is\u00a0 not unlikely\u00a0 that labour may offer to work even\u00a0 on\u00a0 starvation wages.\u00a0\u00a0 The policy of the Act is to prevent the\u00a0 employment of such sweated labour in the interest of general public and so in prescribing the minimum wage rates the capacity of the employer\u00a0 need not be considered.\u00a0 What is being\u00a0 prescribed is\u00a0 minimum wage rates which a welfare state\u00a0 assumes\u00a0 every employer must pay before he employs labour.\u00a0 This\u00a0 principle is\u00a0 not\u00a0 disputed (Vide: Messrs.\u00a0 Crown Aluminium \u00a0Works\u00a0 v. Their Workmen(1)<\/p>\n it\u00a0 is,\u00a0 therefore,\u00a0 necessary\u00a0 to\u00a0 consider\u00a0 what\u00a0 are\u00a0 the components of a minimum wage in the context of the Act.\u00a0 The evidence led before the Committee on Fair Wages showed\u00a0 that some\u00a0 witnesses\u00a0 were\u00a0 inclined to take the \u00a0view\u00a0 that\u00a0 the minimum\u00a0 wage is that wage which is essential to\u00a0 cover\u00a0 the bare physical needs of a worker and his family, whereas\u00a0 the overwhelming\u00a0 majority\u00a0 of witnesses agreed that\u00a0 a\u00a0 minimum wage\u00a0\u00a0 should\u00a0\u00a0 also\u00a0 provide\u00a0 for\u00a0 some\u00a0\u00a0 other\u00a0\u00a0 essential requirements\u00a0 such\u00a0 as\u00a0 a\u00a0 minimum\u00a0 of\u00a0 education,\u00a0\u00a0 medical facilities\u00a0 and other amenities.\u00a0 The Committee came to\u00a0 the conclusion\u00a0 that a minimum wage must provide not merely\u00a0 for the bare subsistence of life but for the preservation of the efficiency\u00a0 of the worker, and so it must also\u00a0 provide\u00a0 for some\u00a0\u00a0 measure\u00a0 of\u00a0 education,\u00a0 medical\u00a0\u00a0 requirements\u00a0\u00a0 and amenities.\u00a0 The concept about the components of the\u00a0 minimum wage\u00a0 thus enunciated by the Committee have\u00a0 been\u00a0 generally accepted\u00a0\u00a0 by\u00a0 industrial\u00a0 adjudication\u00a0 in\u00a0 this\u00a0\u00a0 country. Sometimes\u00a0 the minimum wage is described as a\u00a0 bare\u00a0 minimum wage\u00a0 in\u00a0 order to distinguish it from the,\u00a0 wage\u00a0 structure which\u00a0 is\u00a0 ‘subsistence\u00a0 plus or fair\u00a0 wage,\u00a0 but\u00a0 too\u00a0 much emphasis on the adjective “bare” in relation to the\u00a0 minimum wage\u00a0 is\u00a0 apt to lead to the erroneous assumption\u00a0 that\u00a0 the maintenance wage is a wage which enables the worker to cover his bare (1) [1958] S.C.R. 651. 958<\/p>\n physical\u00a0 needs\u00a0 and ]Keep himself\u00a0 just\u00a0 above\u00a0 starvation. That clearly is not intended by the concept of minimum wage. On the other hand, since the capacity of the employer to pay is\u00a0 treated as irrelevant, it is but right that no\u00a0 addition should be made to the com ponents of the minimum wage\u00a0 which would take the minimum wage near the lower level of the fair wage,\u00a0 but the contents of this concept must ensure for\u00a0 the employee not only his sustenance and that of his family\u00a0 but must\u00a0 also\u00a0 preserve his efficiency as a\u00a0 worker.\u00a0\u00a0 The\u00a0 Act contemplates that minimum wage rates should be fixed in\u00a0 the scheduled\u00a0 industries\u00a0 with\u00a0 the dual\u00a0 object\u00a0 of\u00a0 providing sustenance and maintenance of the worker and his family\u00a0 and preserving his efficiency as a worker.<\/p>\n Mr.\u00a0 Nambiar\u00a0 contends\u00a0 that when the\u00a0 statute\u00a0 purports\u00a0 to prescribe\u00a0 a minimum wage in effect it directs the\u00a0 fixation of\u00a0 a\u00a0 statutory minimum wage and as such, capacity\u00a0 to\u00a0 pay must\u00a0 be considered before such minimum wage is fixed.\u00a0\u00a0 His argument\u00a0 is\u00a0 that in any event\u00a0 the\u00a0 impugned\u00a0 notification statutorily prescribes such minimum wage rates for the\u00a0 tile industry\u00a0 in\u00a0 the State of Kerala and as such the\u00a0 rates\u00a0 so recommended\u00a0 do\u00a0 not constitute merely\u00a0 the\u00a0 industrial\u00a0 and economic\u00a0 minimum as understood by\u00a0 industrial\u00a0 adjudication but\u00a0 it constitutes a statutory minimum which can\u00a0 be\u00a0 fixed only\u00a0 after taking into account the employers’\u00a0 capacity\u00a0 to pay\u00a0 the same.\u00a0 In support of this argument Mr. Nambiar\u00a0 has strongly\u00a0 relied on some observations made by this Court\u00a0 in the\u00a0 case of Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. v. The\u00a0 Union of\u00a0 India\u00a0 (1).\u00a0\u00a0 We\u00a0 will\u00a0 presently\u00a0 refer\u00a0 to\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 said observations\u00a0 but in appreciating the nature and\u00a0 effect\u00a0 of the said observations it is necessary to recall that in that case\u00a0 the Court was dealing with the problem of fixation\u00a0 of wages in regard to Working Journalists as prescribed by s. 9 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 Working\u00a0 Journalists (Conditions\u00a0 of\u00a0 Service)\u00a0 and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (45 of 1955).\u00a0 Section\u00a0 9 of\u00a0 the said Act required that in fixing rates of\u00a0 wages\u00a0 in respect of working journalists the Board had to have\u00a0 regard to the cost of living, the prevalent (1) [1959] S.C.R. 12. 959<\/p>\n Rates of wages for comparable employments, the circumstances relating, to newspaper industry in different regions of\u00a0 the country and to any other circumstance which to the Board may deem\u00a0 relevant.\u00a0\u00a0 It\u00a0 was\u00a0 held\u00a0 that\u00a0 the\u00a0 wage\u00a0\u00a0 structure contemplated\u00a0 by s. 9 was not the structure of minimum\u00a0 wage rates, it was a wage structure permitted to be prescribed by that\u00a0 statute\u00a0 after taking into\u00a0 account\u00a0 several\u00a0 relevant facts\u00a0 and\u00a0 the\u00a0 scheme of that Act\u00a0 showed\u00a0 that\u00a0 the\u00a0 wage structure thus contemplated was very much beyond the minimum wage rates and was nearer the concept of a fair wage.\u00a0\u00a0 That is\u00a0 why\u00a0 the Court took the view that\u00a0 the\u00a0 expression\u00a0 “any other\u00a0 circumstance” specified by s. 9\u00a0 definitely\u00a0 included the\u00a0 circumstance, namely, the capacity of the\u00a0 industry\u00a0 to bear\u00a0 the\u00a0 burden and so the Board was bound\u00a0 to\u00a0 take\u00a0 that factor\u00a0 into\u00a0 account\u00a0 in fixing\u00a0 the\u00a0 wage\u00a0 structure.\u00a0\u00a0 It appeared\u00a0 to the Court that this important element\u00a0 had\u00a0 not been\u00a0 considered by the Board at all and that\u00a0 introduced\u00a0 a fatal\u00a0 infirmity in the decisions of the Board.\u00a0\u00a0 Thus,\u00a0 the wage\u00a0 structure with which the Court was concerned\u00a0 in\u00a0 that case\u00a0 was\u00a0 not the mini. mum wage structure at all.\u00a0\u00a0 It\u00a0 is essential\u00a0\u00a0 to\u00a0 remember\u00a0 this\u00a0 aspect\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 matter\u00a0\u00a0 in appreciating\u00a0 the\u00a0 argument\u00a0 urged by\u00a0 Mr.\u00a0 Nambiar\u00a0 on\u00a0 the strength\u00a0 of certain observations made by this Court in\u00a0 the course of its judgment.<\/p>\n In\u00a0 the course of his judgment Bhagwati, J., who\u00a0 spoke\u00a0 for the Court, has elaborately considered several aspects of the concept\u00a0 of wage structure including the concept of\u00a0 minimum wage.\u00a0\u00a0 The conclusion of the Fair Wage Committee as to\u00a0 the content of the minimum wage has been cited with approval (p. 83).\u00a0\u00a0 Then\u00a0 a\u00a0 distinction has been drawn\u00a0 between\u00a0 a\u00a0 bare subsistence\u00a0 or minimum wage and a statutory\u00a0 minimum\u00a0 wage, and\u00a0 it is observed that the statutory minimum wage\u00a0 is\u00a0 the minimum \u00a0which\u00a0 is prescribed by the statute and it\u00a0 may\u00a0 be higher\u00a0 than the bare subsistence or minimum wage\u00a0 providing for\u00a0 some\u00a0 measure of education,\u00a0 medical\u00a0 requirements\u00a0 and amenities\u00a0 (p.\u00a0 84).\u00a0\u00a0 This observation\u00a0 is\u00a0 followed\u00a0 by\u00a0 a discussion about the concept of fair wage; and in 960<\/p>\n dealing\u00a0 with the said topic the Minimum Wages Act has\u00a0 also been referred to and it is stated that the Act was\u00a0 intended to\u00a0 provide\u00a0 for fixing minimum rates of\u00a0 wages\u00a0 in\u00a0 certain employments\u00a0 and\u00a0 the\u00a0 appropriate\u00a0 Government\u00a0 was\u00a0 thereby empowered\u00a0 to\u00a0 fix\u00a0 different\u00a0 minimum\u00a0 rates\u00a0 of\u00a0 wages\u00a0 as contemplated by s. 3(3).\u00a0 Then it is stated that whereas the bare\u00a0 minimum\u00a0 or subsistence wage would have\u00a0 to\u00a0 be\u00a0 fixed irrespective\u00a0 of\u00a0 the capacity of the industry\u00a0 to\u00a0 pay\u00a0 the minimum\u00a0 wage thus contemplated postulates the\u00a0 capacity\u00a0 of the\u00a0 industry to pay and no fixation of wages which\u00a0 ignores this essential factor of the capacity of the industry to pay could ever be supported.\u00a0 Mr. Nambiar contends that the last part\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 observation\u00a0 refers\u00a0 to\u00a0 the\u00a0 minimum\u00a0\u00a0 wage prescribed\u00a0\u00a0 by\u00a0 the\u00a0 Act\u00a0 and\u00a0 it\u00a0 requires\u00a0\u00a0 that\u00a0\u00a0 before prescribing the said wage the capacity of the industry\u00a0 must be\u00a0 considered.\u00a0 We do not think that this argument is\u00a0 well founded.\u00a0\u00a0 It\u00a0 would\u00a0 be noticed\u00a0 that\u00a0 in\u00a0 considering\u00a0 the distinction\u00a0\u00a0 drawn\u00a0 between\u00a0 the\u00a0 minimum\u00a0 wage\u00a0 fixed\u00a0\u00a0 by industrial adjudication and the minimum wage prescribed by a statute\u00a0 which is called statutory minimum it has been\u00a0 made clear\u00a0\u00a0 that\u00a0 the\u00a0 latter\u00a0 can\u00a0 be\u00a0 higher\u00a0 than\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 bare subsistence or minimum wage and as such is different in kind from the industrial minimum wage.\u00a0 We do not think that\u00a0 the observation\u00a0 in\u00a0 question\u00a0 was\u00a0 intended\u00a0 to\u00a0 lay\u00a0 down\u00a0 the principle that whereas a minimum wage can be laid down by an industrial\u00a0 adjudication without reference to an\u00a0 employer’s capacity\u00a0 to\u00a0 pay the same it cannot be fixed by\u00a0 a\u00a0 statute without considering the employer’s capacity to pay.\u00a0 Such\u00a0 a conclusion would be plainly illogical and unreasonable.\u00a0 The observations on which Mr. Nambiar relies do not support\u00a0 the assumption made by him and were not intended to lay down any such rule.\u00a0 Cases are not unknown where statutes prescribe a minimum\u00a0 and\u00a0 it\u00a0 is\u00a0 plain\u00a0 from\u00a0 the\u00a0 relevant\u00a0\u00a0 statutory provisions\u00a0 themselves that the minimum thus\u00a0 prescribed\u00a0 is not the economic or industrial minimum but contains\u00a0 several components\u00a0 which\u00a0 take the statutorily\u00a0 prescribed\u00a0 minimum near the level of the fair wage,and when that is the\u00a0 effect of the statutory provision capacity to pay may no doubt have to be 961 considered.<\/p>\n It was a statutory wage structure of this\u00a0 kind with\u00a0 which\u00a0 the Court was dealing in the\u00a0 case\u00a0 of\u00a0 Express Newspapers\u00a0 (Private) Ltd. (1), because s. 9 authorised\u00a0 the imposition of a wage structure very much above the level\u00a0 of the\u00a0 minimum\u00a0 wage and it is obvious that\u00a0 the\u00a0 observations made\u00a0 in\u00a0 the judgment cannot, and should not,\u00a0 be\u00a0 divorced from the context of the provisions with respect to which\u00a0 it was pronounced.\u00a0 Therefore, we feel no hesitation in reject- ing\u00a0 the\u00a0 argument that because the Act\u00a0 prescribes\u00a0 minimum wage rates it is necessary that the capacity of the employer to\u00a0 bear\u00a0 the\u00a0 burden of the said\u00a0 wage\u00a0 structure\u00a0 must\u00a0 be considered.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The\u00a0 attack\u00a0 against\u00a0 the\u00a0 validity\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the notification made on this ground must therefore fail.<\/p>\n It\u00a0 still\u00a0 remains\u00a0 to consider whether in\u00a0 fact\u00a0 the\u00a0 noti. fication has prescribed a wage structure which is above\u00a0 the level\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 minimum\u00a0 wage\u00a0 properly\u00a0 socalled.\u00a0\u00a0 If\u00a0 the notification\u00a0 has in fact prescribed a wage structure\u00a0 which is nearer the fair wage level and is above the minimum\u00a0 wage structure that no doubt would introduce an infirmity in\u00a0 the notification\u00a0 since it does appear that the capacity of\u00a0 the employer\u00a0 to bear the burden has not been considered\u00a0 either by\u00a0 the\u00a0 Committee or by the Government.\u00a0 This part\u00a0 of\u00a0 the attack\u00a0 against\u00a0 the notification is based on\u00a0 two\u00a0 grounds. Mr.\u00a0 Nambiar contends that in making its calculations\u00a0 about the minimum wage rates the Committee has taken into\u00a0 account an\u00a0 item\u00a0 of entertainment, and that, says Mr.\u00a0 Nambiar,\u00a0 is clearly inadmissible.\u00a0 He also points out that the Committee has\u00a0 described the daily minimum of Rs. 2.67 nP.\u00a0 ultimately deduced\u00a0 by\u00a0 it\u00a0 as\u00a0 intended\u00a0 to\u00a0 maintain\u00a0 the\u00a0 employee’s subsistence\u00a0 plus’\u00a0 standard and that again shows\u00a0 that\u00a0 the wage\u00a0 structure\u00a0 is\u00a0 above the minimum,\u00a0 standard\u00a0 and\u00a0 goes towards\u00a0 the\u00a0 lower\u00a0 level of the fair\u00a0 wage.\u00a0\u00a0 We\u00a0 are\u00a0 not impressed\u00a0 by\u00a0 this\u00a0 argument.\u00a0 It would\u00a0 be\u00a0 recalled\u00a0 that amongst the miscellaneous items in respect of which Rs. 2.84 nP. are added by the Committee in its calculations are rent, education, (1) [1959] S.C.R. 12. 121 962 medical\u00a0 aid\u00a0 and entertainment.<\/p>\n The first\u00a0 three\u00a0 are\u00a0 not inadmissible, and so the attack is against the inclusion\u00a0 of the\u00a0 last item alone.\u00a0 Even assuming that the last\u00a0 item\u00a0 is inadmissible\u00a0 it\u00a0 is\u00a0 not\u00a0 difficult\u00a0 to\u00a0 imagine\u00a0 that\u00a0 the addition\u00a0 of this last item could not have\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 meant much in the calculations of the Committee, and so the grievance made on\u00a0 account\u00a0 of\u00a0 the inclusion of the said\u00a0 item\u00a0 cannot\u00a0 be exaggerated.\u00a0\u00a0 There are, however, two other\u00a0 factors\u00a0 which are\u00a0 relevant\u00a0 in this connection.\u00a0 What the\u00a0 Committee\u00a0 has described\u00a0 as the subsistence plus’ standard should\u00a0 on\u00a0 its own\u00a0 calculations\u00a0 represent the daily minimum of\u00a0 Rs.\u00a0 2.84 nP., not Rs. 2.67 nP.\u00a0 Rs. 2.67 nP. is plainly the result of miscalculation\u00a0 so\u00a0 that it can be safely assumed\u00a0 that\u00a0 the said\u00a0 sum which is taken to represent the daily\u00a0 minimum\u00a0 to maintain\u00a0 a\u00a0 ‘subsistence plus’ standard in\u00a0 fact\u00a0 does\u00a0 not include an amount which may be attributed to\u00a0 entertainment. Besides, it is necessary to remember that what the Committee has ultimately recommended is not the award of Rs. 2.67\u00a0 nP. which\u00a0\u00a0 according\u00a0 to\u00a0 it\u00a0 represents\u00a0 ‘subsistence.\u00a0\u00a0 plus’ standard\u00a0 but only Rs. 2 and that itself shows that what\u00a0 is re.\u00a0 commended\u00a0 is below the\u00a0 ‘subsistence\u00a0 plus’\u00a0 standard. There\u00a0 is\u00a0 yet\u00a0 another\u00a0 point\u00a0 which\u00a0 leads\u00a0 to\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 same conclusion.\u00a0 Even if the whole of the miscellaneous item\u00a0 is excluded\u00a0 and\u00a0 calculations are made on the basis\u00a0 that\u00a0 the total\u00a0 permissible\u00a0 items amount to Rs. 14.18 nP.\u00a0 we\u00a0 would still\u00a0 reach the figure for the daily minimum which is\u00a0 more than\u00a0 Rs.\u00a0 2.\u00a0 Therefore,\u00a0 look at it\u00a0 how\u00a0 we\u00a0 may,\u00a0 it\u00a0 is impossible\u00a0 to accept the argument that the\u00a0 wage\u00a0 structure ultimately\u00a0 recommended by the Committee is anything\u00a0 higher than\u00a0 what\u00a0 the Committee thought to be\u00a0 the\u00a0 minimum\u00a0 wage- structure.\u00a0 Therefore, we are not prepared to hold that\u00a0 the notification which is in conformity with the recommendations of the Committee has prescribed wage rates which are\u00a0 higher than the minimum wage structure.\u00a0 If that be so, failure\u00a0 to take\u00a0 into account the capacity of the industry to bear\u00a0 the burden\u00a0\u00a0 can\u00a0\u00a0 introduce\u00a0\u00a0 no\u00a0 infirmity\u00a0\u00a0 either\u00a0\u00a0 in\u00a0\u00a0 the recommendations\u00a0 of’\u00a0 the Committee or in\u00a0 the\u00a0 notification following upon them. 963<\/p>\n Mr.\u00a0 Nambiar\u00a0 no doubt wanted to attack the\u00a0 merits\u00a0 of\u00a0 the notification\u00a0 on the ground that the wage rates fixed by\u00a0 it are\u00a0 unduly high.\u00a0 In that connection he relied on the\u00a0 fact that\u00a0 the\u00a0 minimum\u00a0 wage\u00a0 rates\u00a0 prescribed\u00a0 by\u00a0 the\u00a0 Madras Government\u00a0 by\u00a0 its notification published on\u00a0 February\u00a0 25, 1952,\u00a0 as\u00a0 well\u00a0 as\u00a0 the\u00a0 wage\u00a0 rates\u00a0 prevailing\u00a0 in\u00a0 other industries\u00a0 in Kerala were slightly lower.\u00a0 He also\u00a0 pointed out\u00a0 that the wage rates awarded by industrial\u00a0 adjudication and\u00a0 even the claims made by the employees themselves\u00a0 would tend to show that what has been awarded by the\u00a0 notification is\u00a0 higher\u00a0 than the prescribed minimum wages.\u00a0\u00a0 It\u00a0 is\u00a0 not possible\u00a0\u00a0 for\u00a0 us\u00a0 to\u00a0 entertain\u00a0 this\u00a0\u00a0 contention.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The determination\u00a0 of\u00a0 minimum wages must inevitably\u00a0 take\u00a0 into account\u00a0 several relevant factors and the decision\u00a0 of\u00a0 this question\u00a0 has been left by the Legislature to the\u00a0 Committee which\u00a0 has to be appointed under the Act.\u00a0 We\u00a0 have\u00a0 already referred\u00a0 to\u00a0 the\u00a0 composition of\u00a0 the\u00a0 Committee\u00a0 and\u00a0 have reviewed\u00a0\u00a0 very\u00a0 briefly\u00a0 its\u00a0 report.\u00a0\u00a0 When\u00a0 a\u00a0\u00a0 Committee consisting\u00a0 of the representatives of the industry\u00a0 and\u00a0 the employees\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 considers\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 problem\u00a0\u00a0 and\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 makes\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 its recommendations\u00a0 and\u00a0 when\u00a0 the\u00a0 said\u00a0 recommendations\u00a0\u00a0 are accepted\u00a0 by\u00a0 the\u00a0 Government it\u00a0 would\u00a0 ordinarily\u00a0 not\u00a0 be possible for us to examine the merits of the recommendations as well as the merits of the wage structure finally notified by\u00a0 the\u00a0 Government.\u00a0\u00a0 The\u00a0 notification\u00a0 has\u00a0 accepted\u00a0 the recommendations\u00a0 of the Committee to categorise the\u00a0 workers and that obviously was overdue.\u00a0 The fact that wages paid in other industries in Kerala, or in other States in comparable concerns,\u00a0 are lower would have been relevant for\u00a0 the\u00a0 Com- mittee\u00a0 to\u00a0 consider when it made its\u00a0 recommendations.\u00a0\u00a0 In appreciating the effect of the prevalence of lower rates\u00a0 it may also be relevant to bear in mind that in some places and in\u00a0 some industries labour is still employed on\u00a0 wages\u00a0 much below the standard of minimum rates.\u00a0 In fact, in its report the Committee has pointed out that in Kerala. the bargaining position\u00a0 of\u00a0 the workers has all along been very\u00a0 weak\u00a0 and wages\u00a0 have\u00a0 tended\u00a0 to remain in a\u00a0 deplorably\u00a0 low\u00a0 level. Therefore, the fact that lower wages are paid in other 964<\/p>\n industries or in some other places may not necessarily\u00a0 show that\u00a0 the rates prescribed by the notification are\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 unduly high.\u00a0\u00a0 In\u00a0 any\u00a0 event\u00a0 these \u00a0are\u00a0 considerations\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Which ordinarily cannot be entertained by us because obviously\u00a0 we are\u00a0 not sitting in appeal over the recommendations\u00a0 of\u00a0 the Committee or the notification following upon them.\u00a0 That\u00a0 is why\u00a0 the grievance made by Mr. Nambiar on the merits of\u00a0 the wage\u00a0\u00a0 structure\u00a0 prescribed\u00a0 by\u00a0 the\u00a0 notification\u00a0\u00a0 cannot succeed. There\u00a0 is, however, one aspect of this problem to\u00a0 which\u00a0 we must\u00a0 refer before we part with this case.\u00a0 It appears\u00a0 that soon\u00a0 after the notification was issued as many as\u00a0 62\u00a0 tile factories\u00a0 in\u00a0 Trichur closed their works and\u00a0 that\u00a0 led\u00a0 to unemployment of nearly 6,000 employees.\u00a0 In order to resolve the\u00a0 deadlock\u00a0 thus\u00a0 created\u00a0 the\u00a0 respondent\u00a0 referred\u00a0 the industrial dispute arising between the Trichur factories and their\u00a0 employees\u00a0 for industrial adjudication\u00a0 (I.D.\u00a0 45\u00a0 of 1958).\u00a0\u00a0 On this reference an interim award was made and\u00a0 it was\u00a0 followed by a final award on September 26, 1960.\u00a0\u00a0 Both the\u00a0 interim\u00a0 and\u00a0 the\u00a0 final\u00a0 awards\u00a0 were\u00a0 the\u00a0 result\u00a0 of settlement\u00a0 between the parties and the order passed by\u00a0 the tribunal\u00a0 shows\u00a0 that the respondent,\u00a0 acting,\u00a0 through\u00a0 its Labour Minister, “left aside the prestige of the Government, came\u00a0 to the scene and effected a settlement.”\u00a0 Mr.\u00a0 Nambiar has\u00a0 strongly\u00a0 criticised the conduct of the\u00a0 respondent\u00a0 in permitting\u00a0 a departure from the notification in respect\u00a0 of 62\u00a0 tile factories at Trichur contrary to the provisions\u00a0 of the Act, and in insisting upon its implementation in respect of the other parts of the State.\u00a0 His argument is\u00a0 two-fold. He suggests that the settlement reached between the\u00a0 parties in\u00a0 Trichur\u00a0 shows\u00a0 that\u00a0 the\u00a0 minimum\u00a0 prescribed\u00a0 by\u00a0\u00a0 the notification\u00a0 was above the legally permissible minimum\u00a0 and beyond the capacity of the Trichur factories, and that would support his grievance that the rates prescribed are not\u00a0 the minimum but they are such above that level.\u00a0 We are not\u00a0 im- pressed\u00a0 by this argument.\u00a0 As we have already\u00a0 observed\u00a0 we would\u00a0 ordinarily refuse to consider the merits of the\u00a0 wage structure\u00a0 prescribed\u00a0 by the\u00a0 notification.\u00a0\u00a0 Besides,\u00a0 the closure of the factories in Trichur may 965<\/p>\n either be because the factories there found it difficult\u00a0 to pay\u00a0 the\u00a0 wage structure or may be for\u00a0 reasons\u00a0 other\u00a0 than industrial.\u00a0 We propose to express no opinion on that\u00a0 point because\u00a0 that is not a point in issue before us, and so\u00a0 the settlement\u00a0 can have no bearing on the fate of\u00a0 the\u00a0 present petition; but the other argument urged by Mr. Nambiar raises a\u00a0 serious question.\u00a0 Under the Act the notification has\u00a0 to apply\u00a0 to all the tile factories in the State and breach\u00a0 of the\u00a0 provisions of the notification is rendered penal\u00a0 under s. 22 of the Act.\u00a0 An agreement or contract contrary to\u00a0 the notification would be void under s. 25 of the Act.\u00a0 It is to be regretted that the respondent, acting through its\u00a0 Labour Minister,\u00a0 appears\u00a0 to\u00a0 have assisted in\u00a0 bringing\u00a0 about\u00a0 a settlement contrary to the terms of the Act.\u00a0 If the respon- dent thought that such a settlement was necessary in respect of\u00a0 Trichur\u00a0 factories\u00a0 it\u00a0 may\u00a0 consider\u00a0 the\u00a0 question\u00a0 of withdrawing the notification in respect of that area and\u00a0 in fairness\u00a0 may also reconsider the problem in respect of\u00a0 all the other areas and decide whether any modification. in\u00a0 the notification\u00a0 is required.\u00a0 It is not appropriate\u00a0 that\u00a0 the respondent should be associated, though indirectly, with the settlement which is in breach of the provisions of the\u00a0 Act. We\u00a0 would,\u00a0 therefore, suggest that\u00a0 the\u00a0 respondent\u00a0 should seriously consider this aspect of the matter and should\u00a0 not hesitate\u00a0 to do what may appear to be just,\u00a0 reasonable\u00a0 and fair on an objective consideration of the whole problem. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n Petition dismissed. 966<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Case Laws Minimum Wages Act Unichoyi And Others Vs The State of Kerala DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 14\/04\/1961 \u00a0 BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. SARKAR, A.K. WANCHOO, K.N. GUPTA, K.C. DAS AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA CITATION: \u00a01962 AIR\u00a0\u00a0 12 \u00a0 1962 SCR\u00a0 (1) 946 \u00a0CITATOR INFO : \u00a0RF \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1963 SC 806 3 \u00a0RF \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1967 … 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\/29904"}],"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=29904"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29904\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":115555,"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29904\/revisions\/115555"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29904"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29904"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29904"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n\n
\n CITATION:<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \u00a01962 AIR\u00a0\u00a0 12<\/td>\n \u00a0 1962 SCR\u00a0 (1) 946<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \u00a0CITATOR INFO :<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \u00a0RF<\/td>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1963 SC 806<\/td>\n \n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \u00a0RF<\/td>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1967 SC 691<\/td>\n \n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \u00a0RF<\/td>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1969 SC 182<\/td>\n \n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \u00a0RF<\/td>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1970 SC2042<\/td>\n \n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \u00a0R<\/td>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1972 SC 605<\/td>\n \n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \u00a0R<\/td>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1974 SC 526<\/td>\n \n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \u00a0D<\/td>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1978 SC1113<\/td>\n \n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \u00a0RF<\/td>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1979 SC\u00a0 25<\/td>\n \n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n