Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This special civil application under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed by four bidi-manufacturing factories in Marathwada under these circumstances : In 1955, after the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (which shall hereafter be referred to as "the Act"), was made applicable to bidi factories in Hyderabad, the Government of the State of Hyderabad issued a notification fixing the minimum rates of wages for bidi-workers. This notification dated 4 March, 1955 came into force on 30 March, 1955 in four areas of the Hyderabad State. On 1 November, 1956 five districts of Marathwada merged with the Bombay State and on 18 November, 1957 the Deputy Commissioner of Labour informed all the employers of the tobacco manufactories in the areas of Marathwada that the Government of Bombay was considering the revision of minimum rates of wages fixed under the Act and that Sri Dhutia, Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Administration), Bombay, would conduct an inquiry in respect of the existing conditions of services obtaining in the industry including its financial capacity. It seems that Sri Dhutia, after making an inquiry, submitted his report to the labour and Social Welfare Department of the State of Bombay, which issued a notification on 10 September, 1958 publishing the Government's proposals for revising minimum rates of wages of bidi-workers fixed by the State of Hyderabad in March 1955. The Marathwada Bidi Manufacturers' Association, being dissatisfied with the recommendations made by Sri Dhutia as well as the proposals contained in the draft notification, made representations to the Government of Bombay and it appears that a representation was also sent to the Advisory Board constituted under the provisions of the Act. These representations were sent on 15 November, 1958. It is not disputed that the Bidi Manufacturers' Association received an intimation from the Minimum Wage Advisory Board, Bombay, dated 15 January, 1959 stating that the Advisory Board had appointed a committee to consider the proposed revision of rates of wages in respect of employment in bidi-making factories in Marathwada and that the committee would be visiting Nanded on 19 January, 1959 and Aurangabad on 20 January, 1959 for the purpose of recording evidence of the employers, employees, their organizations, etc. The committee consisted of seven persons, but there is no dispute that only four of them, including Sri P. S. Bakhale, the Chairman of the Advisory Board, visited Aurangabad on 21 January, 1959. It would seem from the petition that, on behalf of the bidi-manufacturers of Marathwada, an objection was raised to the constitution of the committee, and the representatives of the association thereafter do not appear to have co-operated with that committee. The final notification containing the revised rates was published on 8 July, 1959 and that was to come into force on or after 1 August, 1959. The draft notification issued by the Government on 10 September, 1958 had slightly increased the rates of minimum wages of bidi-workers over the minimum wages fixed by the State of Hyderabad in March 1955. The final notification issued by the Government of Bombay on 8 July, 1959, abolished the distinction between workers in factory and workers who made bidis at their own homes and who are known as Gharkhata workers, which prevailed under the notification issued by the Government of Hyderabad, and fixed a common minimum wage for both the kinds of workers. Secondly, the final notification also increased the rates of minimum wages beyond the revised rates proposed in the draft notification issued in September 1958. The petitioners-bidi-manufacturing factories, being aggrieved by the revised rates fixed in the final notification, have filed the present petition challenging the validity of the aforesaid final notification issued by the State of Bombay on several grounds.

2. Sri Pendse, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has raised the following contentions in support of the petition : In the first instance, he contended that the Government have not followed the procedure prescribed under S. 5 of the Act in issuing the final notification. It is urged that since the draft notification had already proposed an increase in the rates of minimum wages payable to bidi-workers, it is the representation of the manufacturers alone that could be considered by the Government; and if Government, after they took the advice of the Advisory Board, contemplated a further rise in the rates of minimum wages, they should have given another opportunity to the employers to make further representations against their fresh proposals. Sri Pendse then contends that under the Act is the function of the Advisory Board to tender its advice to the Government; but in the present case the Advisory Board appears to have appointed a small sub-committee for the purpose of making inquires on the spot and thereby it had delegated its function to this committee, and that, according to him, is not contemplated by the Act. It is also urged that assuming that the Advisory Board could collect information and data by appointing a sub-committee, that sub-committee should also have been constituted on the principles laid down under S. 9 of the Act and that, having been done, the advice which was tendered by the Advisory Board on the report of the sub-committee would be vitiated and, therefore, the final notification would be invalid. The last contention of Sri Pendse is that the final notification issued by the Government is void because it has raised the rates of minimum wages to such an extent that it would be impossible for the petitioners to carry on their bidi-manufacturing business and, therefore, that would be in contravention of their fundamental right under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It is also contend that under S. 12 of the Act it is obligatory on the employer to pay the minimum rate of wages fixed under the Act; and if that is not paid, the employer would be exposed to penalties for offences under S. 22 of the Act. On the other hand, Sri Pendse contends, no such obligation is cast on the workers and he points out that in the present case the bidi-workers have informed the petitioners that they are willing to settle the wages by mutual negotiations in order to avoid the closure of the factories as threatened by the bidi-manufacturers. Sri Pendse argues that whereas the workers can show their willingness to work on lesser rates of wages than the minimum fixed and can actually receive less wages, they would not be exposed to the penalties which an employer would have to suffer under the provisions of S. 22 of the Act. On this ground, Sri Pendse contends that the relevant provisions of the Act must be struck down on the ground that they are discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The argument appears to be that in case the Court declares that Ss. 12 and 22 of the Act are made as they violate the provisions of Art. 14 of the Constitution, it would be open to the petitioners to arrive at an amicable settlement with the workers in the bidi factories, so that it would not be necessary for the employers to close down the bidi factories, and that would be beneficial both to the petitioners as well as the workers. These, in short, are the arguments addressed to us in support of the petition.

5. As already stated, in the present case, the Government published their proposals by way of draft notification in September, 1958, under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of S. 5 of the Act. That notification contained proposals of Government for revising minimum rates of wages in respect of employment in any tobacco (including bidi-making) manufactory in the Hyderabad area of the State of Bombay. Paragraph 2 of the notification stated that any representations which may be received by the Secretary to the Government of Bombay, Labour and Social Welfare Department, from any person in respect of the said draft on or before 15 November, 1958 would be taken into consideration by Government. In the schedule to this draft notification, the revised rates were indicated and in respect of those revised rates the notification made a two-fold classification, viz., revised rate for persons employed in bidi-making on the premises of bidi-making manufactory and revised rate for persons employed in bidi-making outside the premises of the bidi-making manufactory (Gharkhata workers). This classification of workers followed the classification already existing in the notification issued by the Government of Hyderabad in March 1955. Under the Hyderabad notification, in Aurangabad, Jalna and Vaijapur areas the rates of minimum wages for workers in bidi factories were Rs. 1-8-0 and for Gharkhata workers they were Rs. 1-6-0 for every 1,000 bidis and in the rest of Hyderabad, the rates were 2 annas lower for both classes of workers. In the draft notification issued by the Government of Bombay in September 1958, for the Aurangabad district, the revised rate proposed for persons employed in bidi-making on the premises of the bidi-making manufactory was Rs. 1.62 per 1,000 bidis, while the revised rate for persons employed outside the premises (Gharkhata workers) was Rs. 1.50 per 1,000 bidis. So far as Nanded, Osmanabad, Bihar and Parbhani districts were concerned, the revised rate proposed for both classes of workers was Rs. 1.37 per 1,000 bidis. In the final notification issued in July 1959, the revised rate of wages fixed for workers in Aurangabad district was Rs. 1.75 and for the districts of Nanded, Osmanabad, Bhir and Parbhani, it was fixed at Rs. 1.50 per 1,000 bidis, the classification of bidi-workers into those making bidis on the factory premises and Gharkhata workers being done away with.

6. Sri Pendse, in the first instance, contends that since the draft notification revised the rates favourably for the bidi-workers by introducing a slight increase in the original rate, it would not be necessary and not even open to the workers to make any representations with regard to the draft notification and the Government would have to consider only the representation of the employers who were adversely affected by the said notification. It is the contention of the petitioners that is the effect of the procedure prescribed under S. 5(1)(b) of the Act. We are unable to accept this contention. Under S. 5(1)(b)MUM WAGES ACT, 1948~^, what the Government do is to publish their proposals for revision and the publication is for the information of persons likely to be affected thereby. It cannot be said, therefore, that the draft notification is published only for the information of persons who might be prejudicially affected and that it would not be open to the workers in whose favour the proposals have been made by the Government to make any representation with regard to the draft notification. It is impossible to accept the contention urged by Sri Pendse that what is contemplated under S. 5(1)(b)MUM WAGES ACT, 1948~^ is representation on the part of persons who are prejudicially affected by the proposals of Government, because it would make it necessary to add something to the wording of the section which is not there. In the second place, under S. 5(2)INIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948~^ of the Act, before Government fix the revised minimum rates of wages, they have to take into consideration all representations received by them, and that necessarily implies that representations might be received both from the employers as well as the employees. In the present case, it is not in dispute that before the draft notification was issued, the question of revision of minimum rates of wages was inquired into by Sri Dhutia, Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Administration), Bombay, and after his report was received the Government published the draft notification. Now, it may be that though in the present case the proposals of Government contemplated a rise in the rates of minimum wages, the bidi-manufacturing workers might not be satisfied with the rise proposed, and we fail to see how it could be said that they were persons not likely to be affected by the proposals of Government. We must, therefore, reject the argument of Sri Pendse that under S. 5(1)(b) of the Act, if proposals are published and if the proposals are favourable to the workers, it would be only open to the employers to make representations.