http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NARAYANA VELUR BEEDI MANUFACTURING FACTORY & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT26/03/1973

BENCH: GROVER, A.N. BENCH: GROVER, A.N. MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN MUKHERJEA, B.K.

CITATION:  1973 AIR 1307            1973 SCR  (3) 755  1973 SCC  (4) 178  CITATOR INFO :  F          1976 SC 277  (5)

ACT: Minimum  Wages  Act, 1948,  s.  9-’Independent  persons’--If include Government officials.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant-Government passed an order  revising  minimum wages   in  the  Bidi  industry.   It  was  based   on   the recommendation  of a Committee of six members consisting  of persons  representing employers and employees and the  Chief inspector and Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories.   Section 9  of  the  Minimum  Wages  Act,  1948,  requires  that  the Committee   shall   consist   of   an   equal   number    of representatives  of  the employer and the employees  and  of independent  persons  not exceeding one third of  its  total number.    On  the  question  whether  the  two   Government officials could be regarded as independent persons, HELD  :  The mere fact that they happened to  be  Government officials or Government servants will not divest them of the character of independent persons. [761C] The  language of s. 9 does not contain any  indication  that persons  in  the  employment  of  the  Government  would  be excluded from the category of ’independent persons’.   These words have essentially been employed in contradistinction to representatives of employers and employees.  In other words, apart  from the representatives of employers  and  employees there  should be persons who should be independent of  them. [76OG-H] Further, the presence of high government officials, who  may have   actual  working  knowledge  about  the  problems   of employers  and employees can afford a good deal of  guidance and  assistance  in formulating the advice which  is  to  be tendered.   It  may be that in  certain  circumstances  such persons  may cease to have an independent character  if  the question  of fixation of minimum wages in an  employment  in which  the  appropriate Government is  directly  interested, arises.   It would therefore depend upon the facts  of  each particular case whether the persons who have been  appointed could be regarded’ as independent or not.  It is not correct to  say that a Government official will have a bias or  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

he  may favour the policy which the  appropriate  Government may  be inclined to adopt. be,cause, when he is a member  of an  Advisory Committee he is expected to give  an  impartial and  independent  advice and not merely carry out  what  the Government may be inclined to do.  Government officials are responsible persons and are capable of taking a detached and impartial view.                           [76OH: 761A-E] Jaswant  Rai  Berl & Others v. State of  Punjab  &  another, A.I.R. 1958 Punj. 425, D. M. S. Rao & Others v. The Stare of Kerala  &  Another, A.I.R. 1963 Kerala  115,  Bengal  Motion Pictures  Employees  Union, Calcutta  v.  Kohinoor  Pictures Private  Ltd.  &  Ors.  A.I.R.  1964  Cal.  619,  Ramkrishna Raninath  Nagpur  & Another v. Tile State of  Maharashtra  & Another,  A.I.R.  1964 Bom, 51,  Chandrabhave  Boarding  and Lodging  & Others v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1968  Mys.  156 and  P.  Gangadharan  Pillai v. State of  Kerala  &  Others, A.I.R. 1968 Kerala 218, approved. 756 Norotamdas Harjivandas v. P. V. Gourikar, Inspector, Minimum Wages, A.I.R. 1961 M.B. 182 and Kohinoor Pictures  (Private) Ltd.   ’V.  State of West Bengal & Others, [1961]  2  L.L.J, 741, over ruled.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos.  1659  to 1662 of 1967. Appeals  by  certificate from the judgment and  order  dated January  31,  1964  of  the Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court  at Hyderabad  in Writ Petition Nos. 337/63, 746/62, 735/62  and 807/62, respectively. P. Ram Reddy and A. V. V. Nair, for the appellant. M. C. Chagla, H. K. Puri and Niranjana Shah, for the res- pondents (in C. A. No. 1659) respondents 1 to 10, 12 to  14, 16  and  19 to 29 (in C.A. No. 1660), Respondent No.  1  (in C.A.  No.  1661) and Respondents Nos. 1 to 5  (in  C.A.  No. 1662). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GROVER,  J.-The  sole question which has to  be  decided  in these  appeals by certificate from a judgment of the  Andhra Pradesh High Court is the meaning of the word  "independent" in  S. 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, hereinafter  called the "Act". The Act was enacted to provide for fixing the minimum  rates of  wages  in  certain employments.   Section  2  gives  the definition of various expressions.  Clauses (e) (h) and  (i) give  the  meaning  of the  words  "employer",  "wages"  and "employee"  respectively.  Section 3 provides for fixing  of the minimum rates of wages by the appropriate government and their  review  at certain intervals.  Section  5  gives  the procedure for fixing and revising minimum wages.  Section  5 reads               S. 5 (1) "In fixing minimum rates of wages  in               respect  of any scheduled employment  for  the               first  time  under  this Act  or  in  revising               minimum   rates   of  wages  so   fixed,   the               appropriate government shall either-               (a)appoint  as  many  committees  and  sub-               committees  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 information  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

             persons  likely  to be  affected  thereby  and               specify  a date not less than two months  from               the  date  of the notification, on  which  the               proposals will be taken into considers               (2)After  considering  the  advice  of  the               committee or committees appointed under clause               (a) of sub-section 757               (1)or as the case may be, all  representations               received  by it before the date  specified  in               the notification under clause (b) of that sub-               section, the appropriate government shall,  by               notification in the Official Gazette, fix, or,               as  the case may be, revise the minimum  rates               of   wages  in  respect  of   each   scheduled               employment,   and  unless  such   notification               otherwise  provides, it shall come into  force               on the expiry of three months from the date of               its issue :               Provided............................" Section  9 relates to composition of committees etc. and  is in these terms               S.9."Each  of the  committees,  sub-committees               and  the  Advisory  Board  shall  consist   of               persons  to  be nominated by  the  appropriate               Government    representing    employers    and               employees  in the scheduled  employments,  who               shall  be  equal in  number,  and  independent               persons not exceeding, one-third of its  total               number  of  members; one of  such  independent               persons shall be appointed the Chairman by the               appropriate Government." The  Government  Order which was challenged related  to  the revision  of  minimum wages in the Bidi  industry.   It  was based on the recommendation of a committee consisting of six members,  two  of whom were Chief  Inspector  of  Factories, Hyderabad,   and’  Deputy  Chief  Inspector  of   Factories, Hyderabad;  the  former  being  the  Chairman.   These   two officers  were  to  be  on the  committees  from  among  the category of independent persons mentioned in s. 9. The whole controversy  has  centered  on  the  question  whether   the aforesaid two officers could be regarded as independent per- sons.   There are a number of decisions of the High  Courts. In  majority of them, namely, Jaswant Rai Beri &  Others  v. State  of Punjab & Another;(1) D. M. S. Rao & Others v.  The State  of  Kerala  & Another,  (2)  Bengal  Motion  Pictures Employees Union, Calcutta v. Kohinoor Pictures Private  Ltd. &  Others,  (3) Ramkrishna Ramnath Nagpur & Another  v.  The State of Maharashtra & Another; (4 ) Chandrabhava Boarding & Lodging and Others v. State of Mysore.(5) and P. Gangadharan Pillai v. State of Kerala & Others, (6)  has been held  that the  mere  fact  that a person happens to  be  ,  government servant or that he is an officer, he does not cease to be an independent person within the meaning of S. 9. The only  two decisions  in  which  a contrary view  has  been  taken  are Narottamdas Harjivandas v. P. V. Gowarikar, Inspector, (1)   A.I.R. 1958 Punj. 425. (3)  A.I.R. 1964 Cal. 519. (5)  A.I.R. 1968 Mys. 156. (2)  A.I.R. 1963 Kerala 115. (4)  A.T.R. 1964 Bom. 51. (6)   A.I.R. 1968 Kerala 218. 16--L761Sup.C.I./73 758 Minimum  Wages(1)  and Kohinoor Pictures (Private)  Ltd.  v.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

State  of West Bengal & Others;(2) the latter is a  judgment of the learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court.   It may  be  mentioned  that in the judgment  under  appeal  the Andhra  Pradesh High Court has also taken the same  view  as the Madhya Pradesh court. The  reasoning  of Bishan Narain J.. in the Punjab  case  is quite  simple.   The learned Judge considered  that  in  the context of S. 9 an independent person means a person who  is neither  an employer nor an employee in the  employment  for which  minimum  wages  are  to be  fixed,  The  presence  of independent persons is necessary to safeguard the  interests of those whose requirements are met by the trade  concerned. In a welfare State, according to him, it is the business  of the   Government  to  create  conditions   wherein   private employers can carry on their trade profitably as long as the workmen  are  not  exploited.   In  such  circumstances  the appointment of a Labour Commissioner, who is conversant with the  employment  conditions, cannot be objected  to  on  the ground that he was not an independent person.  In the  first Kerala case C. A Vaidialingam J.. as he then was, gave  some additional reasons for supporting the view of Bishan  Narain J.  He  referred to s. 2(i) of the Industrial  Disputes  Act 1947  for illustrating that a person shall be deemed to  be independent  for the purpose of his appointment as  Chairman or  other  members of a Board, Court or Tribunal if  he  was unconnected  with  the industrial dispute referred  to  such Board,  Court  or Tribunal or with  any  industry  directly. effected  by such dispute.  This is what the  learned  Judge observed with reference to the provisions of S. 9:               "When-it speaks of persons to be nominated  by               the  Government to the committee  representing               employers  and  employees  in  the   scheduled               employments   and  also.  of   nominating   an               "independent  person", in my view, the  object               of  the  enactment is  that  the  "independent               person"  should be who has nothing to do  with               the  employers or employees in  the  scheduled               employment  in  question.  It may  that  under               particular circumstances, when an industry, in               which the State Government as an employer  may               also  be vitally interested and in which  case               it can be considered to be an employer, it may               not  be proper to nominate an official to  the               committee  treating  him  as  an   independent               member". A  division bench of the Calcutta High Court  consisting  of Bose  C. J. and G. K. Mitter J., as he then was,  in  Bengal Motion Pictures Employees Union v. Kohinoor Pictures P. Ltd. (3) referred (1)  A.I.R. 1961 M.P. 182. (3)  A.I.R. 1964 Cal. 519. (2)  1961 2 L.L.J. 741. 759 to  the legislative policy underlying the enactment  of  the Act.  What is aimed at is the; statutory fixation of minimum wages  with a view to obviating the chances of  exploitation of  labour.   Such being the main object it was  natural  to expect  that  the Government would seek  the  assistance  of persons  who  were well conversant with  the  conditions  of labour industrial competition, profits from the industry and various other relevant factors which are to be considered in fixing  the minimum wages.  It could hardly be doubted  that persons  like the Labour Commissioner or the  Deputy  Labour Commissioner  are most suitable persons to be consulted  for the  purpose.  The other reason given in the  Calcutta  case

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

was  similar to the one which prevailed with  Bishan  Narain J.,  in  the Punjab case.  In the Bombay case  the  Division Bench  referred to certain rules framed under s. 30  of  the Act  by  the  Government of Bombay.   According  to  Rule  4 provision  was  made for terms of office of members  of  the Board and a distinction was made in subrules 2 and 3 between the  non-official  member  and the official  member  of  the Board.   From the scheme of the rules it was  inferred  that even  Government officials were contemplated to fall  within the category of "independent persons".  It is unnecessary to refer to the other decisions which favour the majority view. In the Madhya Pradesh case P. V. Dixit, C.J., delivering the judgment of the Bench said that the expression  "independent persons" did riot mean persons who were independent only  of employers and employees in the scheduled employment and  in- cluded  officials.   The ordinary connotation  of  the  word "independent person", it was pointed out, is of a person who is not dependent on any body, authority or Organisation  and who  is able to form his own opinion without any control  or guidance  of  any outside agency.  It appears that  in  this case the learned Judges were influenced by the consideration that  the State is actively interested in the  wage  earners and  in  the  matter of fixation  of  minimum  wages.   That precluded Government officials from falling within the class of  independent  persons provided for by S. 9.  In  Kohinoor Pictures  case(1) a learned single judge while  appreciating that  the advisory committees constituted under 5 read  with s.  9 of the Act have a purely advisory function,  took  the view  that the appropriate Government in fixing the  minimum rates  of wages was not at all a disinterested  person.   He also   took-into  consideration  the  interest   which   the Government may have in fixing the minimum wages.   According to  him  the  fixation  of minimum  wages  is  an  operation compelling the employer to make a payment whether he  wishes it  or not and in most cases contrary to his wishes.   Three parties  are involved in such compulsory  fixation,  namely, the Government, the employer and the employed.  If (1) [1961] 2.L.L.J. 741. 760 the  advisory committee is really to consist of  independent persons   categories. they should be independent of all  the three Mr.  Chagla for the respondents has relied a great  deal  on the dictionary meanings of the word ’’independent" as  given in Shorter oxford English Dictionary.  One of the  principal meaning  given  is  "not depending  upon  the  authority  of another;  not in position of subordination; not  subject  to external  control  or  rule".  According  to  Mr.  Chagla  a Government  official  cannot  be  regarded  as   independent because he is to depend upon the authority of the government and  is  in  position of subordination  and  is  subject  to external  control.  It has been strenuously urged  that  the whole  object of having an advisory committee is to  get  an impartial  opinion  or  advice in the matter  of  fixing  of minimum   wages.    The   committee  has   to   consist   of representatives  of  employers  and  the  employees  in  the scheduled  employment who have to be equal in  number.   The presence  of independent persons not exceeding one third  of the  total number of members is necessary to ensure  that  a proper  balance  is  maintained  between  the  view  of  the representatives   of   the  employers  and   the   employees respectively.  If a government official and, in  particular, one  associated  either  with labour  or  factories  in  his official  capacity  is  brought into the  committee  he  is. likely  to be biased in his views for various  reasons.   He

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

may-know the policy of the government or he may himself have participated in the formulation of that policy.  He may have certain  predilection because of special knowledge  obtained by  him  while serving in a department which  is  connected. with labour or industry.  All these matters would divest him of the character of an independent person. In our judgment the view which has prevailed with the  majo- rity of the High Courts must be sustained.  The committee or the  advisory  board  can only tender advise  which  is  not binding on the government while fixing the minimum wages  or revising  the  same  as  the case may  be.   Of  course  the government   is  expected,  particularly  in   the   present democratic  set  up,  to take  that  advice  seriously  into consideration  and act on it but it is not bound to  do  so. The language of s. 9 does not contain any indication whatso- ever that persons in the employment of the government  would be excluded from the category of independent persons.  These words have essentially been employed in contradistiction  to representatives of employers and employees.  In other words, apart  from the representatives of employers  and  employees there  should be persons who should be independent of  them. It does not follow that persons in theservice or employ of the government were meant to be excluded and they cannot  be regarded as independent persons vis-a-vis therepresentatives of  the  employers  and  employees.   Apart  from  this  the presence of high government officiaIs 761 who may have actual working knowledge about the problems  of employers  and employees can afford a good deal of  guidance and  assistance  in formulating the advice which  is  to  be tendered  under S. 9 to the appropriate government.  It  may be that in certain circumstances such persons who are in the service  of the government may cease to have an  independent character  if  the question arises of  fixation  of  minimum wages  in a scheduled employment, in which  the  appropriate government  is  directly interested.  It  would,  therefore, depend  upon the facts of each particular case  whether  the persons  who  have been appointed from out of the  class  of independent  persons can be regarded as independent or  not. But  the  mere  fact  that  they  happen  to  be  government officials  or government servants will not divest  them  of the character of independent persons.  We are not  impressed with  the reasoning adopted that a government official  will have  a  bias  or that he may favour the  policy  which  the appropriate government may be inclined to adopt because when he  is  a  member of an advisory committee or  board  he  is expected to give an impartial and independent advice and not merely carry out what the Government may be inclinded to do. Government officials are responsible persons and it  cannot be  said that they are not capable of taking a detached  and impartial view. For the reasons given above the appeals are allowed and  the judgment  of the High Court is hereby set aside.   As  other matters  were  left undecided in the writ petitions  out  of which  these appeals have arisen the case shall go  back  to the High Court for disposal ,in accordance with law.   Costs shall abide the event. V.P.S.                         Appeals allowed. 76 2