Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. in view of this recent decision of the Supreme Court, the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioners has to be rejected. Before I advert to and consider the second contention, it is necessary to state the various matters which preceded the issue of the notifications under attack. As I mentioned earlier, the facts which are stated in respect of group No. 1 will apply to group No. 2 also and what is stated regarding group No. 3 will apply to group No. 4 also.

12. The Kozhikode Taluk Central Council of Local Trade Unions representing the workmen employed in the timber industry appear to have submitted a memorandum to the Labour Commissioner, Kerala State requesting the latter to fix minimum rates of wages for workmen employed in the timber industry. The State Government, after considering these representations and making inquiries, came to the conclusion that minimum rates of wages has to be fixed in the timber industry in the State.

Accordingly, the State Government, by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 published a Notification No. L1/5079/57/L and LAD, dated 22nd May, 1957. declaring their intention to add employment in the timber industry to Part I of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act. The notification also stated that the proposals will be taken into consi-deration after the expiry of three months from the date of publication and the objections and suggestions received before the said period will be considered by the State Government. There were certain objections received. Finally, the Government after a consideration of those objections, published a Notification No. L1/5079/57/L and LAD dated r9th October, 1957, under Section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act amending Part I of the Schedule to the Act by adding the employment in timber industry as item No. 22.

15. it is this notification, dated 22nd August, 1959, fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of timber industry that is the subject of attack in the writ petitions coming under groups 1 and 2. No doubt, there is another special attack made in the writ petition filed by the plywood factory coming under group No. I namely, O. P. 1182/59 that plywood industry as such is something different from timber industry and inasmuch as the notifications issued under Section 27 relate only to timber industry and not plywood industry, the State Government has no jurisdiction to fix minimum rates of wages in respect of plywood industry also as they have purported to do under the impugned notification. That aspect also will be dealt with by me later in the judgment.

So far as O. P. 1182/59 which relates to the plywood industry is concerned, this judgment will be subject to my decision regarding the special contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner therein that the expression "timber industry" does not include "plywood industry" and as such the notification fixing minimum wages for employment in "timber industry" will not bind the owners of "plywood industry".

79. O. P. 1182/59 alone will be posted for further hearing at the request of the counsel on 18th September, 1961.