http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: M/s.  BHIKUSA YAMASA KAHATRIYA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SANGAMNER AKOLA TALUKA BIDIKAMGAR UNION

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/10/1962

BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. WANCHOO, K.N. GUPTA, K.C. DAS

CITATION:  1963 AIR  806            1963 SCR  Supl. (1) 524  CITATOR INFO :  R          1963 SC1591  (11)  R          1964 SC1260  (6)  F          1970 SC2042  (16)  R          1973 SC2634  (3,6)  R          1974 SC1044  (6)

ACT: Minimum Wages-Statute delegating power to Government to  fix wages-If   confers   arbitrary   and   uncontrolled   powers Notification  fixing minimum wages-Validity  of-Notification dates April 19, 1956, of Government of Bombay-Minimum  Wages Act, 1948(XI of 1948), s.3(3)(iv).

HEADNOTE: Section  3(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, authorise  the appropriate.  Government to fix rates of minimum was payable to  employees  in the scheduled employments.   Section  3(3) (iv) authorises the government, in fixing or revising mini- mum  wages,  to  fix  different  minimum  rates  for  differ localities.  By  Notification  dated  April  19,  1955,  the Government of Bombay revised the minimum rates of wages  for work  employed  in  the bidi  manufactories  and  fixed  for localities Sangamner and Akola and places within seven miles of  the respective Municipal limits, a minimum rate  of  Rs. 2/2/-  525 making  1000 bidis.  The appellant contended that s.  3  (3) (iv) violated Arts. 14 and 19(1) (i) of the Constitution  as it conferred uncontrolled powers on the government  enabling it to discriminate between employers of different localities which  also affected their business, that  the  notification also  violated  Art. 14 and that the  notification  was  not validly  made as the  Advisory Board had  no representatives of the employers on it. Held,  that s. 3 (3) (iv) of the Act was valid and that  the Notification was issued after compliance with the  statutory Provisions. Section  3(3)(iv)  does not delegate any  arbitrary  or  un- controlled  power  to the Government’ Having regard  to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

diversity  of  Conditions  prevailing  and  the  number   of industries covered by the Act, the Legislature could not fix uniform  rates  for  all the, industries  and  for  all  the localities.    Working  out  of  the  detailed,   provisions relating  to minimum rates had from the very nature  of  the legislation to be delegated to some authority By  entrusting to  the State Government power to fix minimum wages for  any locality  or  localities  the legislature  has  not  striped itself  of  its essential legislative power but  has  merely entrusted ;in incidental function to it.  The policy and the principles  for  guidance in the exercise of the  power  are inherent  in the purpose and object of the Act, and  in  the machinery  erected for assisting the Government  in  marking equitable adjustment of the conflicting claims of labour and employers.   If  a statute does not  make  a  classification itself  but leaves it to a responsible body to make  it  and sets  out  the policy or principles for  its  guidance,  the statute cannot be struck down as infringing Art. 14. Kathi  Raning  Rawat v. State of Saurashtra,  [1952]  S.C.R. 435, relied on. The notification was promulgated after making a full enquiry under  the  Act.   The fixation of rates of  wages  and  the revision  thereof was done after considering the reports  of the  committees and sub-committees appointed in that  behalf and  of the Advisory Committees and Board, and after  giving full  consideration  to  the  representations  made  by  the employers  likely  to be affected thereby.   The  fact  that there was no representative of the employers in the Advisory Board  did  not affect the validity of the  Notification  as there  was  no  such  statutory  requirement.   Besides  the function  of the Board is merely to co-ordinate the work  of the  Committees and subcommittees and to a  vise  Government generally in the matter 526 of  fixing and revising the minimum rates ; its function  is not  to make any detailed investigation in’  any  particular industry.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 546 of 1961. Appeal  from the judgment and decree dated June 27  and  30, 1958  and  November 28, 1958, of the Bombay  High  Court  in Special Civil Application No. 67 of 1958. G.   S. Pathak, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and  Ravinder Narain, for the appellants. D.   S. Nargolkar and K. R. Chaudhuri, for respondent No. 1. S.   B. Naik and K. R. Chaudhuri, for respondent No. 2. N.   S.  Bindra and P. D. Menon, for respondents Nos. 3  and 4. 1962.   October,  10.   The  judgment  of  the  Court,   was delivered by SHAH,  J.-.M/s. Bhikusa Yamasa Kahatriya and M/s.   Bastiram Narayandas  (owners  of bidi factories at Sangamner  in  the District of Ahmednagar) hereinafter referred to collectively as  ’the appellants’, moved the High Court of judicature  at Bombay under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ or direction declaring s. 3(3)(iv) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, (XI of 1948) and a Notification dated April 19,  1955, issued  by  the  Government of Bombay  in  exercise  of  the authority  vested  under  the Act (,ultra  vires,  void  and illegal"  because the said enactment and  the  Notification. infringed  the guarantee’. of equal protection of the  laws, and affected the. rights of the appellants to carry on their

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

lawful  business,  and  for  an  order  declaring  that  the appellants were not bound by the said Notification and  were not  527 liable   to  pay  wages to the Bidi  workers  at  the  rates prescribed by the Notification, and for consequential relief The High Court dismissed the petition, for in their view, s. 3(3)(iv) of the Minimum Wages Act and the Notification dated April  19,  1955,  fixing minimum rates of  wages  for  bidi workers  in  the localities of Sangamner and Akola  did  not violate   the   fundamental   rights   guaranteed   by   the Constitution  and that the State of Bombay had  "in  issuing the  Notification  revising  the  rates  of  minimum   wages followed  the  procedure prescribed in that  behalf  by  the Act." Against the order, with certificate of fitness granted by the High Court under Art. 133(1)(c) of the  Constitution, this appeal is preferred by the appellants. The  Minimum Wages Act, 1948, was enacted by the  Parliament to  provide  for fixing minimum rates of  wages  in  certain employments.   The  validity of the Act as it stood  in  the year  1956 falls to be determined in this appeal.   We  will therefore refer to the Act as it stood in the year 1956, and will  omit reference to amendments in the Act by  enactments since  that  year.  Sub-section (1) of s. 3  authorises  the appropriate  Government  in  the manner  prescribed  to  fix minimum  wages payable to employees employed in  employments specified  in parts I and II of the Schedule, for the  whole State or for a part of the State or for any specified  class or  classes of such employment in the whole State  or  parts thereof and to review at such intervals as the State  thinks fit  the minimum rates of wages so fixed and to  revise  the rates.   By sub-S. (3) the State is authorised in fixing  or revising minimum rates of wages to fix-(a) different minimum rates  of  wages for (i) different scheduled  employments  ; (ii)  different  classes  of  work  in  the  same  scheduled employment;   (iii)   adults,  adolescents,   children   and apprentices;  (iv) different localities.  Section  5  sub-s. (1)  prescribes  the procedure for fixing and  revising  the rates of Minimum wages, 528 It  is provided in so far as it is material that "in  fixing minimum   rates  of  wages  in  respect  of  any   scheduled employment  x x x x x x x x or in revising minimum rates  of wages the appropriate Government shall either-(a) appoint as many committees and subcommittees as it considers  necessary to hold enquiries and advise it in respect of such  fixation or  revision, as the case may be, or (b) by notification  in the Official Gazette, publish its proposals for the informa- tion of per-sons likely to be affected thereby and specify a date,  x x x x x x x x on which the proposals will be  taken into   consideration."   By  sub-s.  (2)   the   appropriate Government  is authorised to fix the minimum rates of  wages in  respect of each scheduled employment  after  considering the’  advice  of  the  committee  or  sub-committee  or  the representations received from persons interested.  Section 6 empowers  the  appropriate Government  to  appoint  Advisory Committees and subcommittees to enquire into the  conditions prevailing  in any scheduled, employment and to  advice  the appropriate Government in making such revision in respect of such  employment.   Section  7  authorises  the  appropriate Government  to appoint Advisory Boards’ for the  purpose  of coordinating  the  work  of  the  committees  and   Advisory Committee  and  for  advising  the  appropriate   Government generally  in the matter of fixing and revising the  minimum rates  of  wages.  Section 9 prescribes the  composition  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

committees   and  Advisory  Boards.   Committees,   Advisory Committees  and the Advisory Boards are to be  nominated  by the  appropriate  Government and are to consist  of  persons representing  employers  and  employees  in  the   scheduled employments  who are to be equal in number  and  independent persons  not  exceeding  one-third of its  total  number  of members.  Section 10 prescribes the procedure to be followed in  the revision of minimum rates of wages.  By s. 20  power is  conferred  upon the appropriate  Government  to  appoint regional ’authorities to hear and decide claims ’arising out of payment 529 of  less  than  the  minimum rates  of  wages  to  employees employed  in  the  localities.   Section  26  empowers   the appropriate Government to direct that the provisions of  the Act  or any of them shall not apply to all or any  class  of employees  employed  in any scheduled employment or  to  any locality  where there is carried on a scheduled  employment. By s. 27 the appropriate Government is authorised to add  to either  Part  of the Schedule any employment in  respect  of which  the appropriate Government thinks that minimum  rates of wages should be fixed under the Act.  "Employment in  any tobacco  (including bidi-making) manufactory" is one of  the items in Part I of the Schedule to the Act. In  exercise of the powers conferred by s. 5 the  Government of Bombay by Resolution dated February 27, 1951, appointed a Committee  to hold enquiry and to advise the  Government  in fixing  minimum rates of wages in respect of employment  "in any  tobacco  (including  Bidi-making)  manufactory".    The Committee consisted of three employers’ representatives,  an equal   number   of  employees’   representatives   and   an independent  chairman.  On July 3, 1952, the  Government  of Bombay  appointed, in exercise of powers conferred under  s. 6,  a Committee to assist it in considering the question  of "revision of zoning" (and rates of wages, if necessary) made under  orders regarding minimum wages for employment in  any tobacco manufactory.  An Advisory Board was also constituted by Resolution dated October 3, 1953.  The Committee  invited suggestions  from  the  Labour Unions of  employees  in  the tobacco  industry  and also of the employers  and  submitted their  report to the Government of Bombay.   A  notification operative  from  March 31, 1952, was  thereafter  issued  in exercise  of  the powers conferred by s. 3 (1)  (a)  of  the Minimum   Wages   Act   by   the   Government   of    Bombay after,considering  the  advice  of  the  Committee,   fixing minimum rates of’ wages payable to workers 530 employed in different industries in Zones I to IV  specified in  the  Schedule  appended thereto.   Districts  of  Thana, Ahmednagar,  East  Khandesh,  West  Khandesh  Nasik,  Poona, Satara  North, Kolaba and Dangs in the State of Bombay  were included  in  Zone  III.  In Zone III  in  the  Bidi  making industry  for making 1000 bidis a minimum rate "of  Rs.  2/- (without  leaves)"  was prescribed.  By  Notification  dated June  30,  1955,  issued under s. 26(2)  the  Government  of Bombay  directed  that  for a period of  three  months  with effect  from July 1, 1955, the provisions of the  Act  shall not  apply  to  bidi  makers  employed  in  the  bidi-making industry in the localities of Sangamner and Akola and places within  seven  miles of their respective  Municipal  limits. This exemption was extended from time to time, till the  end of December 1956, but by Notification dated August 22, 1956, the Government of Bombay cancelled the exemption with effect from  September 1, 1956, in respect of Sangamner  and  Akola and places within seven miles of their respective  Municipal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

limits.   In the mean time by Notification dated  April  19, 1955, the Government of Bombay after considering the  report of  the Advisory Committee and after consultation  with  the Advisory  Board,  revised  the minimum  rates  of  wages  of workers employed in the Bidi manufactories and fixed for the localities  of Sangamner and Akola and places  within  seven miles  of their respective Municipal limits, a minimum  rate of  Rs.  2/2/- for making 1000 bidis.  After  the  exemption granted under s. 26(2) was cancelled workers employed in the Bidi industry in Sangamner and Akola and places within seven miles of their respective Municipal limits demanded wages at the  revised rates.  The employers having failed to  satisfy their  demands, applications were preferred by  the  workers under  s.  20  of  the Minimum Wages  Act  to  the  Regional authority appointed in that behalf.  By order dated November 6, 1957, the authority under the Minimum Wages Act  rejected the  contentions raised by the employers and held  that  the workers  531 were entitled to wages, at the rates fixed by the Government under  the  notification  dated April.  19,  1955,  as  from January  1,  1957, but not before that date.   Aggrieved  by that decision the appellants applied to the High Court under Art.  226 of the Constitution for writs declaring  that  the provisions  of s. 3(3) (iv) of the Minimum Wages  Act  which authorised  fixation of varying rates of minimum  wages  for different  localities, and the Notification dated  April  19 1955,  were discriminatory and void, for they infringed  the equal protection clause of the Constitution.  The High Court dismissed  the  petition.  In this appeal  counsel  for  the appellants contends :-               (1)   that  s. 3(3)(iv) of the  Minimum  Wages               Act,  1948 confers arbitrary and  uncontrolled               power  upon the State Government to fix  rates               of   minimum  wages  in  respect  of   certain               localities, and thereby enables the Government               to   discriminate   contrary  to   the   equal               protection clause of the Constitution  against               the  employers carrying on their  business  in               those  localities,  and on  that  account  the               exercise  of  the  power  so  conferred   also               amounts to imposing unreasonable  restrictions               upon  their right to carry on  their  business               under Art. 19(1) (f) of the Constitution;               (2)   that  the Notification dated  April  19,               1955,  is  discriminatory  and  violates   the               fundamental  right  of  equality  before   law               guaranteed by the Constitution; and               (3)   that ss. 5, 6, 7 and 9 were  contravened               because the Committees were not validly  cons-               tituted  there being in the Advisory Board  no               representatives  of  employers  in  the   Bidi               industry,  and therefore there was  no  lawful               revision   of   minimum   wages   under    the               Notification dated April 19, 1955. 532 Section  3  of the Minimum Wages Act was  impugned  in  this Court  on  the plea that it infringed Art. 19(1)(f)  of  the Constitution  in  Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. v.  The  State  of Ajmer  (1).  Mukherjea, J., speaking for the Court  in  that case  observed that having regard to the scheme of  the  Act and  the purpose for which it was enacted, namely to  secure to workmen in the enjoyment of minimum wages and to  protect against exploitation it was necessary to put restraints upon their  freedom of contract and such restraints could not  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

regarded  in  any  sense  as  unreasonable.   In  a   recent judgment of    this  Court  in U. Unichoyi v. The  State  of Kerala(2) it was observed that ""what the Minimum Wages  Act purports to achieve is to prevent exploitation of labour and for  that purpose authorises the appropriate  Government  to take  steps  to  prescribe minimum rates  of  wages  in  the scheduled  industries.  In an under-developed country  which faces  the problem of unemployment on a very large scale  it is not unlikely that labour may offer to work even on  star- vation  wages.   The  policy of the Act is  to  prevent  the employment of  such  sweated labour  in  the  interest  of general public and so in prescribing the minimum wage  rates the  capacity of the employer need not be considered.   What is  being prescribed is minimum wage rates which  a  welfare State  assumes  every employer must pay  before  he  employs labour". The  plea  that fixation of minimum  rates  by  Notification under  s.  3  violates the fundamental  freedom  under  Art. 19(1)(f)  is in view of the decision of this Court not  open to be canvassed by the appellants.  But it is urged that  in enacting   s.  3(3)(iv)  which  conferred  upon  the   State authority  to  fix  varying  minimum  rates  of  wages   for different localities, the Legislature gave no indication  of the  matters to be taken into account for that purpose,  and entrusted  the State with arbitrary and uncontrolled  power, exercise  whereof  was likely to  result  in  discriminatory treatment between different employers carrying on the (1)       [1955] 1 S. C. R. 752.                  (2) [1962] 1 S. C. R. 946.  533 same business in contiguous localities.  The Act undoubtedly confers  authority upon the appropriate Government to  issue notifications fixing and revising rates of minimum wages  in respect  of diverse industries for the whole or part of  the State.   Having  regard  to  the  diversity  of   conditions prevailing  and the number of industries covered by the  Act the  Legislature  could obviously not  fix  uniform  minimum rates  of  wages for all scheduled industries,  or  for  all localities in respect of individual industries.  Working out of  detailed provisions relating to the minimum  rates,  the advisability  of  fixing  rates  for  different  industries, ascertainment  of  localities  in  which  they  were  to  be applied,  and the time when they were to be  effective,  and fixation of time rate., piece rate, or guaranteed time  rate had from the very nature of the legislation to be  delegated to  some  authority.  In considering the  minimum  rates  of wages for a locality diverse factors such as, basic rates of wage., special allowance, economic climate of the  locality, necessity  to  prevent  exploitation having  regard  to  the absence   of  Organisation  amongst  the  workers,   general economic  condition  of the industrial  development  in  the area,  adequacy  of  wages  paid,  and  earnings  in   other comparable employments and similar other matters would  have to be taken into account.  Manifestly the Legislature  could not ascertain whether it was expedient to fix minimum  wages in  respect  of  each  scheduled  industry  for  the  entire territory  or  for  a part thereof and  whether  uniform  or varying   rates  should  be  fixed  having  regard  to   the conditions  prevailing  in different localities.   Again  of necessity different rates had to be fixed in respect of  the work   performed  by  adults,  adolescents,   children   and apprentices. The object and policy of the Legislature appear on the  face of   the  Act.   The  object  of  the  Act  is  to   prevent exploitation of the workers, and for that purpose it aims at

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

fixation of minimum wages which the employers must pay.  The Legislature undoubtedly 534 intended to apply the Act to those industries or  localities in  which by reason of causes such as    unorganized  labour or  absence of machinery for regulation of wages, the  wages paid to workers were,  in the light of the general level  of wages,  and  subsistence level, inadequate.   Conditions  of labour  vary,in  different industries and from  locality  to locality,  and the expediency of fixing minimum  wages,  and the’  rates thereof’ depends largely upon,  diverse  factors which in their very nature are variable and can properly  be ascertained  by  the Government which is in  charge  of  the administration of the State.  It is to carry out effectively the  purpose of this enactment that power has been given  to the  appropriate  Government to decide,  with  reference  to local conditions, whether it is desirable that minimum wages should  be  fixed  in  regard  to  any  scheduled  trade  or industry, in any locality, and if it be deemed expedient  to do  so,  the  rates at which the wages should  be  fixed  in respect  of  that industry in the locality.   By  entrusting authority  to  the appropriate Government to  determine  the minimum wages for any industry in any locality or generally, the  legislature has not divested itself of  its  authority, nor  has  it  conferred uncontrolled power  upon  the  State Government.    The  power  conferred  is   subordinate   and accessory for carrying out the purpose and the policy of the Act.   By  entrusting to the State Government power  to  fix minimum wage for, any particular locality or localities  the Legislature-..has  not  stripped  itself  of  its  essential legislative-  power but has merely entrusted what is  merely an incidental function of making a distinction having regard to   the  special  circumstances  prevailing  in   different localities  in  the matter of fixation of rates  of  minimum wages.   Power  to fix minimum rates of wages  does  not  by itself  invest the appropriate Government with authority  to make unlawful discrimination between employers in  different industries.  Selective application of a law according to the exigencies  where  it is sanctioned, ordinarily  results  in permissible 535 classification.   Article 14 forbids class  legislation  but does not prohibit reasonable classification. for the purpose of legislation.  If the basis of classification is indicated expressly  or by implication, by delegating the function  of working  out  the  details of a  scheme,  according  to  the objects of the statute and principles inherent therein, to a body  which  has  the means to do so  at  its  command,  the legislation   will  not  the  exposed  to  the   attack   of unconstitutionality.   In other words, even if  the  statute itself  does  not make a classification for the  purpose  of applying its provisions, and leaves it to a responsible body to  select  and  classify  persons,  objects,  transactions, localities or things for special treatment, and sets out the policy or principles for its guidance in the exercise of its ,authority in the matter of selection, the statute will  not be  struck down as infringing Art. 14 of  the  Constitution. This principle is well recognised: see Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra(1). Let us now examine whether this Legislature has conferred an uncontrolled or arbitrary power upon the Government  without laying  down  any municipal for its  guidance  in  selecting different rates for different localities in the fixation  or revision of the minimum rates of wages.  The Legislature has by  s.  4 laid down what the minimum rated of  wages  is  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

consist of, and by s. 5 it has prescribed the procedure  for fixing minimum wages.  An alternative procedure is  provided for  making  enquiry  for fixing and  revising  the  minimum wages.  The State Government may either appoint a  Committee or sub.committee to hold enquiry and advise it in respect of such  fixation  or  revision,  as the case  may  be,  or  by Notification  in the Official Gazette publish its  proposals for  the  information  of  persons  likely  to  be  affected thereby.  After receiving the report of the Committee or the representations  made  in  respect  of  the  proposals  from persons  affected thereby the State Government may  fix  the minimum rate; of wages. (1)  [1952] S. C. R. 435. 536 Advisory Committees to enquire into conditions prevailing in any  scheduled  employment and to advise the  Government  in making  the revision, and an Advisory Board for the  purpose of co-ordinating the Work of committees appointed under  ss. 5  and  6 and for advising the Government generally  in  the matter  of fixing and revising minimum rates of  wages  have also  to  be  constituted.  Sections 5, 6 and 7  set  up  an elaborate  machinery for collecting and  sifting  materials, for the purpose of ascertaining conditions prevailing in  an industry for fixing minimum wages and for revising the same. By setting up this machinery the statute contemplated a full investigation  in the presence of interested persons by  the Committee   and   the  Advisory  Board  presided   over   by independent  persons  before  it resolved  upon  either  the fixation of rates or revision of rates.- The charge that the Legislature had entrusted to the Government an arbitrary and uncontrolled  power cannot reasonably be sustained.   It  is true  that  power  is  conferred  upon  the  Government   to determine  the  appropriate  rates  of  minimum  wages   for industries generally or in any locality.  But the policy and principles  for the guidance in the exercise of  this  power are  inherent in the purpose and object of the Act,  and  in the machinery erected for assisting the Government in making an equitable adjustment of the conflicting claims of  labour and the employers.  There is therefore no delegation of  any arbitrary and uncontrolled power to the Government. The  impugned  Notification was promulgated after  making  a full enquiry under the Act.  It was after due  consideration of the report of the Committee that the rates were  revised. It appears that representations were made by the Nasik  Bidi manufacturers who were bracketed with the Bidi manufacturers of  Sangamner  and  Akola  in  Zone  III  in  fixing  rates, requesting the Government to cancel the revised minimum wage rate fixed under Notification  537 dated April 19, 1955, and to restore the old rate.   Pending consideration of these representations the Government  which had  originally directed that the revised minimum  rates  of wages  were  to  come  into operation  from  July  1,  1955, postponed implementation of the revised rates, and  directed that exemption from the application of the Act may  continue for a further period of three months.  Their representations dated June 17, 1955, and September 9, 1955, referred to  the general  economic  depression, reduced  buying  capacity  of consumers, fall in the cost of living index, competition  in the market and the organised condition of labour,  inability of  the  industry  to pay higher wages  and  the  additional economic  burden such as increased trends of taxation.   The economic  advantages sanctioned under the Factories Act  and bonus compensation, facilities under the Industrial Disputes Act were also pressed into service to induce the  Government

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

not to bring into force the revised rates of minimum  wages. Fixation  of  rates of wages and the revision  thereof  were manifestly preceded by a detailed survey and enquiry and the rates  were brought into force after full  consideration  of the  representations  which were made by a  section  of  the employers   concerned.   It  would  be  difficult   in   the circumstances to hold that the Notification dated April  19, 1955,  which  fixed  different rates of  minimum  wages  for different   localities,   was  not  based   on   intelligent differential having a rational nexus with the object of  the Act,  and thereby violated Art. 14.  It is obvious  that  no uncontrolled  or  arbitrary  power  was  exercised  by   the Government : it exercised power to fix the rates of  minimum wages  after considering the reports of the  Committees  and sub-committees appointed in that behalf and of the  Advisory Committees  and Advisory Board formed for  coordinating  the work  of the Committees, and revised them after giving  full consideration  to the representations made by the  employers likely to be affected thereby. 538 In  regard  to the contention  that  the.Notification  dated April  19, 1955, was invalid because in the for   nation  of the Committees under s. 5 and the Advisory Committees  under s. 6 and the Advisory Board    under s. 7, provisions of the Act were contravened, no arguments were  advanced  and  none could be advanced.  It  appears  that  the  Committees  were formed    consistently with the provisions of s. 9 under the chairmanship   of  a  retired  officer   with   considerable judicial  experience  and the Advisory  Committee  appointed wider  s.  6  also consisted  of  three  representatives  of employers  and three representatives of  employees  presided over by a chairman having experience of industrial disputes. It was urged, however, that in the Advisory Board there  was no  representative  of the employers in the  Bidi  industry. But the function of the Advisory Board under s. 7 is to  co- ordinate the work of the Committees and sub-committees under ss.  5 and 6 and to advise the Government generally  in  the matter  of  fixing  and revising  the  minimum  rates.   The function   of  the  Board  is  not  to  make  any   detailed investigation    in   any   particular    industry.     That investigation  is contemplated to be made by  the  Committee and  the Advisory Committee.  The Act does not require  that the   Board  should  consist  of  representatives   of   any particular  scheduled industry.  The Board is to consist  of representatives of employers  and employees in the scheduled employments,  and such a Board was constituted.   The  Board examined  the  reports  of the Committee  and  the  Advisory Committee  and  even called upon the employers in  the  Bidi industry  to  submit their  representations.   The  Advisory Board considered the representations and made its  unanimous recommendation  on  which the Notification dated  April  19, 1955, was issued. On  a careful examination of the various provisions  of  the Act  and  the  machinery  set up thereby  we  hold  that  s. 3(3)(iv) does not contravene Art. 19(1)(f)  539 of  the  Constitution nor does it infringe  the  equal  pro- tection  clause of the Constitution; we also hold  that  the Notification  dated April 19, 1,955 did not violate Art.  14 of  the Constitution.  We are further of the view  that  the constitution  of the Committees and the Advisory  Board  did not  contravene  the  statutory provisions  in  that  behalf prescribed by the Legislature. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.                      Appeal dismissed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10