Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(16) Is there any justification for the grievance that the impugned notifications in respect of the petitioners' industries were vitiated by bias as only the clamour of the opposition party for revision/fixation of minimum wages was considered, as evidenced by the unchallenged report of the statement made by the Minister for Labour in 'The Hindu' dated 24-2-1982 ?
(17) Are the impugned notifications bad in law as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution ?
(18) While revising the minimum wages, is there any scope for incorporation of variable dearness allowance in the impugned notification ?

86. POINT NO. 17 : That the Government has the power to fix variable dearness allowance is not open to challenge on a plain reading of the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act. But Mr. Kurian contended that the impugned notifications provide for the upward revision only and not for adjustment downwards in the event of the cost of living index going down. He relied on an unreported decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Stanmore Estate, Yercaud and ors. v. The Commissioner of Labour and Ors., W.P. Nos. 293, 1199, 1120 & 1154 of 1978 pp. 28-9-1978 (Madras). The Madras High Court, interpreting Section 4(1) of the Act, observed as follows :

93. Point No. 18 : Section 4(1) of the Act is a complete answer to this question and, therefore, this point is held against the petitioners.

94. Point No. 19 : The power of the Government is not circumscribed by the proposals made by it in the draft notifications. But if, as contended by some of the petitioners, there was no proposal to introduce variable dearness allowance in the draft notifications, the impugned notifications in those cases which had introduced variable dearness allowance will be clearly violative of the principles of natural justice unless the parties are given a chance to file their representations against the inclusion of variable dearness allowance in the final notifications.