http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: MINISTRY OF LABOUR & REHABILITATION & ANOTHER.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: TIFFIN’S BARYTES ASBESTOS & PAINTS LTD. & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/07/1985

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J) KHALID, V. (J)

CITATION:  1985 AIR 1391            1985 SCR  Supl. (2) 302  1985 SCC  (3) 594        1985 SCALE  (2)56

ACT:      Minimum  Wages   Act  1948,   ss.  5(a)  (9)  and  9  - Appointment  of   Committee  to  advise  the  Government  of fixation of  minimum wages  in certain  mines  -  Government officials and  persons not  belonging to the concerned mines appointed as members Government officials, when ’independent persons’ as  contemplated by  s. 9. Whether it is their duty to implement  the provisions  of the  Act and the Government being not  an employer  - Employers  representatives in  the committee -  Whether should  be engaged  for profit  in  the particular employment.

HEADNOTE:      After  considering   the  advice   of  the   Committee, appointed under  ss. 5(1)(a)  and 9 of the Minimum Wages Act 1948, the Government of India by a Notification issued under the Act  fixed the minimum rates of wages payable to certain categories of  employees  in  the  scheduled  employment  in certain mines.  The mine-owners  challenged the notification under Article  226 of  the Constitution  and  the  same  was quashed by  the High  Court on the ground that the Committee on whose  advice the  Notification was  based was improperly constituted for  two reasons:  (1)  that  the  Chief  Labour Commissioner  (Central)   New  Delhi  and  Director,  Labour Bureau, Simla,  were  Government  employees  in  the  Labour Department and  were, therefore,  not truly ’independent’ so as  to   be  eligible  to  be  appointed  to  the  Committee constituted under ss.5 and 9 of the Act and (2) that the so- called representatives  of the  employers on  the  Committee were not  representatives of the named mining industries and were, therefore, ineligible to be appointed to the Committee to represent  the  employers  of  the  particular  scheduled employments.      Allowing the appeal of the Union of India, ^      HELD: 1.  The Government  employees, who  are entrusted with the  task of implementing the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act  1948, cannot,  for  that  reason,  be  dubbed  as interested and  not independent persons. In a case where the Government  itself   is  not   an  employer   there  is   no justification for  holding that  Government employees become

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

’interested persons’ contemplated by 303 s. 9  of the  Act are  persons who  belong  neither  to  the category of  employers nor  to the category of employees and there is  no reason  to think  that Government employees are excluded. The  term ’independent  persons’, is  used in  the section  in   contradistinction  to   the   words   ’persons representing  employers   and  employees  in  the  scheduled employments’. [305 F-H, 306 A-B]      Narottamdas v.  Gowarikar &  Ors. [1961]  (1) LLJ  442; Kohinoor Pictures (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [1961] (2) LLJ  741 and  Bansi Lal  S. Patel  v.  State  of  Andhra Pradesh [1965] 1 LLJ 28 overruled.      Jaswant Rai  v. State  of Punjab A.I.R. 1958 Punjab 425 and Digvijaysinghji  Salt Works Ltd. v. State of Gujarat AIR 1971 Gujarat 14 approved.      State of  Rajasthan v.  Hari Ram Nathwani & Ors. [1976] (1) SCR 641 not applicable.      2. The  persons appointed to the Committee to represent the  employers   were  eligible   to  be  appointed  to  the committee. The scheduled employments in the instant case are employment in  Gypsum, Barytes, Bauxite and Manganese mines. For the  purpose of  appointing a Committee to represent the employers in  the scheduled employment, it was not necessary that the  persons appointed  should be engaged for profit in the particular  employment. It  is enough  if a nexus exists between the  persons so appointed to represent the employers in the  particular employment  and the particular employment concerned. There  was no  material before the High Court nor was the  High Court  in a  position to  say that the persons appointed to  the Committee  to represent the employers were entirely unconnected  with or  ignorant  of  the  particular employment. It  is not  understood how  by merely looking at their names  and the  position occupied  by them,  the  High Court  was  able  to  say  that  they  were  incompetent  to represent the  employers in  the particular employments. The representatives of  the employers consisted of Controller of the  Indian  Bureau  of  Mines,  Secretary  General  of  the Federation of  the Indian  Mining Industries,  President  of Mysore State  Mine Owners  Association, etc.  etc. All these persons are  intimately connected  with the  mining industry and it has not been shown that they were unconnected with or ignorant of  the particular  scheduled employments in mines. It is  impossible to uphold the view of the High Court. [306 D-H, 306 A-E]      Champak Lal  H. Thakkar  v. State of Gujarat [1980] (4) SCC 329 not applicable. 304      3. Notifications  fixing minimum  ages  should  not  be lightly  interfered   with  under   Article   226   of   the Constitution except on the most substantial grounds. [307 G]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 589 of 1972.      From the  Judgment and  Order  dated  8.7.1971  of  the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 3980 of 1969.                             AND              Civil Appeals Nos 541-546 of 1973      From the  Judgment and  Order dated  23.8.1971  of  the Andhra    Pradesh     High    Court     in     W.P.     Nos. 1526,1624,3198,3199,3200 & 3210 of 1970.      G. Das,  P.P. Singh,  R.N.Poddar, for the Appellants in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

C.A. No. 589(N) of 1978.      Respondent No.  1 in  person. (not present) in C.A. No. 589(N) of 1972.      R.N. Poddar  and Mrs. Indira Sawhney for the Appellants in C.A. Nos. 541-546 of 1972.      Dr. Anand  Prakash, Naunit Lal, Kailash Vasdev and Mrs. Vinod Arya for the Respondents in C.A. Nos. 541-546 of 1972.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J. On October 16, 1968 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation, issued a  notification, in  exercise of  their powers  under section 5(1)  (a) and 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, appointing a Committee  "to  hold  enquiries  and  advise  the  Central Government regarding  - (a) the  fixation of  minimum rates  of wages  for the first time under the said Act, and (b) the  revision of minimum rates of wages already fixed by the Central Government under the said Act," in respect  of the  Employment in Manganese, Gypsum, Berytes and  Bauxite   Mines,  Shri  D.Venkatachalam,  Chief  Labour Commissioner 305 (Central), New  Delhi and  Shri K.K.Bhatia, Director, Labour Bureau, Simla  were appointed  as independent members of the Committee while  (i) Shri K.S.Mahaptra, Controller of Indian Bureau of  Mines, Nagpur,  (ii) Shri  Dev Coomer Singhi, The Jhagrakhand Collieries  Private Ltd.,  14/4, Gariaghat Road, Calcutta-19, (iii)  Dr. S.K.Das  Gupta, Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd.,  1,  Middleton  Street,  Calcutta-16  (iv)  Shri  T.R. Goenka, Honorary  Secretary General,  Federation  of  Indian Mining Industries,  7, N.D.S.E.  Part I, New Delhi-3 and (v) Mr. S.G.A.  Naidu, President  of Mysore  State Mine  Owners’ Association, Bangalore, were appointed as representatives of the  employers.  Five  other  gentlemen  were  appointed  as members  of   the  Committee  to  represent  the  employees. Thereafter, on May 19, 1969, after considering the advice of the Committee, the Government of India issued a notification fixing minimum  rates of wages payable to certain categories of  employees   in  the  scheduled  employment  in  Barytes, Bauxite, Manganese and Gypsum Mines. The notification fixing minimum wages  was questioned  by several owners of mines in writ petitions  filed in  the High  Court of Andhra Pradesh. The notification  was quashed  by the  High Court  of Andhra Pradesh on  the ground that the Committee on whose advice it was based  was improperly  constituted for two reasons : (1) Shri Venkatachalam  and Shri  K.K.  Bhatia  were  Government employees in  the Labour Department and were, therefore, not truly "independent’  so as to be eligible to be appointed to the Committee  constituted under  sections 5  and 9  of  the Minimum Wages  Act and; (2) The so called representatives of the  employers  on  the  Committee  as  appointed  were  not representatives  of  the  Barytes,  Bauxite,  Manganese  and Gypsum mining  industries and they were therefore ineligible to be  appointed to the Committee to represent the employers of the particular scheduled employments.      We are  afraid, we  are unable to subscribe to the view taken  by   the  High  Court.  In  our  opinion,  Government employees, who  are entrusted  with the task of implementing the provisions  of the  Minimum Wages  Act, cannot, for that reason, be dubbed as interested and not independent persons. It may  be that in a case where the Government itself is the employer in  the particular  scheduled employment, it may be possible  to   urge  that   Government  employees   are  not independent persons (we express no opinion on that) but in a case where  the Government  itself is not an employer, we do

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

not  see  any  justification  for  holding  that  Government employees who  are interested  in the  implementation of the Minimum Wages  Act, for that reason only, become ’interested persons’ and  cease  to  be  independent.  The  ’independent persons’ contemplated  by s.9  of the  Act are  persons  who belong neither to the category 306 of employers  nor to the category of employees, and there is no reason  to think  that Government employees whose task is merely to  implement Parliamentary Legislation made pursuant to Directive  Principles of  State Policy  and  the  State’s social obligations  in that direction are excluded. The term ’independent persons’, it must be emphasised, is used in the section  in   contra  distinction   to  the  words’  persons representing  employers   and  employees  in  the  scheduled employments’. We  disagree with  the view  expressed by  the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Narottamdas v. Gowarikar & Ors. [1961] 1  L.L.J. 442  and Calcutta  High Court  in  Kohinoor Pictures (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [1961] 2 L.L.J. 741 and  the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bansi Lal S. Patel v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1965] 1 L.L.J. 28. We agree with the view  taken by  the Punjab  High Court in Jaswant Rai v. State of  Punjab A.I.R. 1958 Punjab 425 and the Gujarat High Court in  the Digvijaysingji  Salt Works  Ltd. v.  State  of Gujarat A.I.R.  1971 Gujarat  14. The decision of this Court in State  of Rajasthan  v. Hari Ram Nathwani & Ors. [1976] 1 S.C.R. 641 does not assist either party.      There is  equally no  substance in the other contention which found  favour with  the High  Court, namely,  that the persons  appointed   to  the   Committee  to  represent  the employers were  ineligible to  be appointed to the Committee as they  did  not  represent  employers  in  the  particular scheduled employment.  The scheduled  employments with which we are  concerned are employment in Gypsum mines, employment in Barytes mines, employment in Bauxite mines and employment in manganese  mines. It  is not  explained why  the  persons appointed to  the Committee  to represent  the employers are ineligible  to   represent  employers   in   the   scheduled employments. The High Court merely says "on a perusal of the names of  the employers’  representatives, we find that none of them can be said to be the representatives of the Barytes mines. When the minimum wages of the categories of employees are to  be fixed  in respect  of Barytes  mines, there is no point   in   appointing   the   representatives   of   other employments. The  Government in  its counter  has not stated that any  of the  employers’ representatives,  who have been nominated to  the Committee,  are the representatives of the Barytes mines. The learned counsel appearing for the Central Government also  has not  been able to point out whether any one of  those  nominees  of  the  Government  as  employers’ representatives really  represent the  Barytes mines  or has got expert  knowledge of  the employers  and  their  working conditions in  the scheduled  employments of  Barytes mines. We, therefore, hold that the composition of the Committee is defective in  respect of  the nominations  of the  employers representatives. This is sufficient to 307 quash the  notification which  is based  upon the  advice of such a  defectively and  irregularly constituted Committee." We are  afraid that  the approach  of  the  High  Court  was entirely wrong.  For the purpose of appointing the Committee to represent the employers in a scheduled employment, it was not necessary  that the  persons appointed should be engaged for profit  in the  particular employment. It is enough if a nexus exists  between the  persons so appointed to represent

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

the  employers   in  the   particular  employment   and  the particular employment  concerned. For  example,  it  may  be absurd to  appoint persons engaged in the newspaper industry to a  Committee to  represent  employers  concerned  in  the employment of  Barytes mines  or  Bauxite  mines.  The  case before us  is not  one of  that nature  at all. There was no material before  the High  Court nor was the High Court in a position to  say that the persons appointed to the Committee to represent the employers were entirely unconnected with or ignorant  of   the  particular   employments.  We   fail  to understand how  by merely  looking at  their names  and  the positions occupied  by them,  the High Court was able to say that they were incompetent to represent the employers in the particular employments. The first of them was the Controller of the  Indian Bureau  of Mines,  another was  the Secretary General of  the Federation  of Indian  Mining Industries and yet another  was the  President of  the  Mysore  State  Mine Owners’ Association.  All of  them are  intimately connected with the mining industry and it has not been shown that they are unconnected with or ignorant of the particular scheduled employments in  mines. We  find it  impossible to uphold the view of  the High  Court. The  decision  of  this  Court  in Champak Lal  Thakkar v. State of Gujarat [1980] 4 S.C.C.329, is of  no assistance whatever. In the circumstances we allow the appeals,  set aside  the judgment  of the High Court and dismiss the  Writ Petitions filed in the High Court. We also wish to  emphasise that  notifications fixing  minimum wages are not  to be  lightly interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of some irregularities in the Constitution of the Committee or in the procedure adopted by the Committee. It must be remembered that the Committee acts only as  a recommendatory  body and  the final  notification fixing minimum  wages has  to be  made  by  the  Government. Notification fixing  minimum wages, in a country where wages are already  minimum should  not be  interfered  with  under Article  226   of  the   Constitution  except  on  the  most substantial of  grounds. The legislation is a social welfare legislation undertaken  to further  the Directive Principles of State  Policy and  action taken  pursuant to it cannot be struck down on mere technicalities. A.P.J.                                      Appeals allowed. 308