MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND REHABILITATION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Vs. TIFFINS BARYTES ASBESTOS AND PAINTS LIMITED:BARIUM CHEMICALS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On October 16, 1968 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation, issued a notification, in exorcise of their powers under Sections 5(1)(a) and 9 of the Minimum Wages Act. appointing a committee to hold enquiries and advise the Central Government regarding -

(2.) We are afraid, we are unable to subscribe to the. view taken by the High Court. In our opinion, Government employees, who are entrusted with the task of implementing the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, cannot, for that reason, be dubbed as interested and not independent persons. It may be that in a case where the Government itself is the employer in the particular scheduled employment, it may be possible to urge that Government employees are not independent persons (we express no opinion on that) but in a case where the Government itself is not an employer, we do not see any justification for holding that Government employees who are interested in the implementation of the Minimum Wages Act, for that reason only, become 'interested persons' and cease to be independent. The 'independent persons' contemplated by S. 9 of the Act are persons who belong neither to the category of employers nor to the category of employees, and there is no reason to think that Government employees whose task is merely to implement Parliamentary Legislation made pursuant to Directive Principles of State Policy and the state's social obligations in that direction. are excluded. The term 'independent persons', it must be emphasised, is used in the section in contradistinction to the words 'persons representing employers and employees in the scheduled employments'. We disagree with the view expressed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Narottamdas v. Gowarikar (1961) 1 Lab LJ 442: (AIR 1961 Madh-Pra 182) and Calcutta High Court in Kohinoor Pictures (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal (1961) 2 Lab LJ 741) and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bansi Lal S. Patel v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1965) 1 Lab LJ 28 : (AIR 1965 Andh-Pra 128). We agree with the view taken by the Punjab High Court in Jaswant Rai v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 Punj 425 and the Gujarat High Court in the Digvijaysinghji Salt Works Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1971 Guj 14. The decision of this court in State of Rajasthan v. Hari Ram Nathwani (1976) 1 SCR 641 : (AIR 1976 SC 277) does not assist either party.

(3.) There is equally no substance in the other contention which found favour With the High Court, namely, that the persons appointed to the committee to represent the employers were ineligible to be appointed to the committee as they did not represent employers in the particular scheduled employments. The scheduled employments with which we are concerned are employment in Gypsum mines, employment in Barytes mines, employment in Bauxite mines and employment in manganese mines. It is not explained why the persons appointed to the committee to represent the employers are ineligible to represent employers in the scheduled employments. The High Court merely says "on a perusal of the names of the employers' representatives, we find that none of them can be said to be the representatives of the Barytes mines. When the minimum wages of the categories of employees are to be fixed in respect of Barytes mines, there is no point in appointing the representatives of other employments. The Government in its counter has not stated that any of the employers' representatives, who have been nominated to the committee, are the representatives of the Barytes mines. The learned counsel appearing for the Central Government also has not been able to point out whether any one of those nominees of the government as employers representatives really represent the Barytes mines or has got expert knowledge of the employers and their working conditions in the scheduled employments of Barytes mines. We, therefore, held that the composition of the committee is defective in respect of the nominations of the employers representatives. This is sufficient to quash the notification which is based upon the advice of such a defectively and irregularly constituted Committee." We are afraid that the approach of the High Court was entirely wrong. For the purpose of appointing the committee to represent the employers in a scheduled employment, it was riot necessary that the person appointed should be engaged for profit in the particular employment. It is enough if a nexus exists between the persons so appointed to represent the employers in the particular employment and the particular employment concerned. For example it may be absurd to appoint persons. engaged in the newspaper industry to a committee to represent employers concerned in the employment of Barytes mines or Bauxite mines. The case before us is not one of that nature at all. There was no material before the High Court nor was the High court in a position to say that the persons appointed to the committee to represent the employers were entirely unconnected with or ignorant of the particular employments. We fail to understand how by merely looking at their names and the positions occupied by them, the High Court was able to say that they were incompetent to represent the employers in the particular employments. The first of them was the controller of the Indian Bureau of Mines, another was the Secretary General of the Federation of Indian Mining Industries and yet another was the President of the Mysore State Mine Owners' Association. All of them are intimately connected with the mining industry and it has not been shown that they are unconnected with or ignorant of the particular scheduled employments in mines. We find it impossible to uphold the view of the High Court. The decision of this court in Champak Lal H. Thakkar v. State of Gujarat (1980) 4 SCC 329 : (AIR 1980 SC 1889) is of no assistance whatever. In the circumstances we allow the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the Writ Petitions filed in the High Court. We also wish to emphasise that notifications fixing minimum wages are not to be lightly interfered with under Art. 226 of the Constitution on the ground of some irregularities in the constitution of the committee or in the procedure adopted by the committee. It must be remembered that the committee acts only as a recommendatory body and the final notification fixing minimum wages has to be made by the Government. A notification fixing minimum wages, in a country where wages are already minimal should not be interfered with under Art. 226 of the Constitution except on the most substantial of grounds. The legislation is a social welfare legislation undertaken to further the Directive Principles of State Policy and action taken pursuant to it cannot be struck down on mere technicalities.