BIJAY COTTON MILLS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We now take up the two connected petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. In one of these petitions, 'to wit' Petition No. 188, Shri Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the company'), the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 139 of 1954, figures as the petitioner, while the other petition, 'to wit', Petition No. 189 has been filed by a number of employees working under it. To appreciate the contentions of Mr. Seervai, who appears in support of both these petitions it will be necessary to narrate a few antecedent facts ;

(2.) It appears that some time in 1950 there was an industrial dispute between the company and its labourers regarding enhancement of wages and the dispute was referred by the Government of Ajmer to an Industrial Tribunal, by a notification dated the 1st December, 1950. The tribunal made its award on the 27th November, 1951 and held that "the present earning capacity of the mill precludes the award of higher rates of wages and higher dearness allowance". The employees took an appeal against this award to the Appellate Tribunal. While this appeal was pending, the Chief Commissioner, Ajmer, took steps for the fixation of minimum wages of labourers. in the textile industry within the State, under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. A committee was formed, as has already been stated, on the 17th of January, 1952 which submitted its report on the 4th of October following and on the 7th of October, 1952 the notification was issued fixing the minimum rates of wages, against which writ petitions were filed by several textile companies including the petitioner company. In the meantime however the appeal filed by the labourers of the company proceeded, in the usual way, before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal sent the case back to the Industrial Tribunal for further investigation and the latter made its final award on the 8th of September, 1953 by which it rejected the basis upon which minimum wages of Rs. 56/- were fixed by the Chief Commissioner and fixed the minimum wages including the dearness allowance at Rs. 35/- only. The company states in its petition that the minimum wages fixed by the State Government of Ajmer are altogether prohibitory and it is not at all possible for the company to carry on its business on payment of such wages. Accordingly the company closed its mills on and from the 1st April, 1953. There were about 1500 labourers working in the mills of the company and since January, 1954 several hundreds of them, it is said, approached the managing authorities and requested them to open the mills expressing their willingness to work at Rs. 35/- as wages as fixed by the Industrial Tribunal. Though the majority of workers were agreeable to work on the wages fixed by the Industrial Tribunal, the company is unable to open the mills by reason of the fact that the Minimum Wages Act makes it a criminal offence not to pay the wages fixed under the Act. This being the position and as the Minimum Wages Act stands in the way of the company's carrying on its business, on norms agreed to between itself and its workers, Petition No. 188 of 1954 has been filed by the company challenging the constitutional validity of the material provisions of the Minimum Wages Act itself. The workmen who are willing to work at less than the minimum wages fixed by the State Government have filed the other petition supporting all the allegations of the company. Mr. Seervai, who appears in support of both these petitions, has invited us to hold that the material provisions of the Minimum Wages Act are illegal and 'ultra vires' by reason of their conflicting with the fundamental rights of the employers and the employed guaranteed under Article 19(l) (g) of the Constitution and that they are not protected by Clause (6) of that article.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel that the Minimum Wages Act puts unreasonable restrictions upon the rights of the employer in the sense that he is prevented from' carrying on trade or business unless he is prepared to pay minimum wages. The rights of the employees are also restricted, inasmuch as they are disabled from working in any trade or industry on the terms agreed to between them and their employers. It is pointed out that the provisions relating to the fixation of minimum wages are unreasonable and arbitrary. The whole thing has been left to the unfettered discretion of the "appropriate Government" and even when a committee is appointed, the report or advice of such committee is not binding on the Government. The decision of the committee is final and is not open to further review or challenge in any court of law. The learned counsel further says that the restrictions put by the Act are altogether unreasonable and even oppressive with regard to one class of employers, who for purely economic reasons are not able to pay the minimum wages but who have no intention to exploit labour at all. In such cases the provisions of the Act have no reasonable relation to the object which it has in view. We will examine these contentions in their proper order.