Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The petitioners are owners of residential hotels and eating-houses. In these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, they have challenged the validity of the notification dated 1 June, 1967 (published in the Mysore Gazette dated 8 June, 1967) issued by the Government of Mysore under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, fixing minimum rates of wages for different classes for employees in residential hotels and eating-houses.

2. At the outset, it is useful to narrate briefly the history of the minimum-wage legislation and of fixation of minimum wages in hotel industry.

"Under the Act (Minimum Wages Act) the appropriate Government has either to appoint a committee to hold enquiries and to advise it in regard to the fixation of minimum rates of wages or, if it thinks that it has enough materials on hand, to publish its proposals for fixation of wages in the official gazette and to invite objections."

Thus, it is clear that the Government has to follow the procedure under Clause (b) of S. 5(1) of the Minimum Wages Act if it thinks that it has enough materials on hand to publish proposals for fixation of minimum rates of wages; but if the Government thinks that it has not enough knowledge or information about any scheduled employment to enable it to publish such proposals, the Government has to appoint committees or sub-committees to hold enquiries and to advise it in the matter. Hence, the discretion given to the Government to choose either of the two alternative procedures, cannot be said to be unguided and unfettered.

Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that minimum wage which the Minimum Wages Act enables the Government to fix irrespective of the capacity of the employer to pay such wages, is the bare minimum or subsistence wage and any wage over and above such bare subsistence wage, which can only be fixed after taking into account the capacity of the entire industry and the individual employers, is outside the scope of Minimum Wages Act. Strong reliance was placed on the following observations of Bhagawati, J., in Express Newspapers, Ltd. v. Union of India [1961 - I L.L.J. 339] (vide supra) (at p. 364) :

After quoting with approval the definition of "minimum wage" in the report of the Fair Wages Committee, his lordship stated that the Minimum Wages Act contemplates that minimum wage rates should be fixed with the dual object of providing sustenance and maintenance of the worker and his family and preserving efficiency as a worker.

In view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the statutory minimum wage cannot be equated to bare minimum wage or subsistence wage.

Sri V. G. Row, learned counsel for the Bangalore Hotel and Canteen Workers' Union (which has been impleaded as a respondent of its application in Writ Petition No. 1422 of 1967), contended that the onus of establishing that the rates of wages fixed by the Government, are in excess of rates, of minimum wages, is on the petitioners who have challenged those rates, and that the petitioners have not placed any material to discharge that onus.