KARNATAKA PLANTERS ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the pleadings of the parties and the competing contentions of their Learned Counsel, the following general points arise for consideration in these batches of petitions :

(2.) I will take up the last contention of the respondents (point No 25) first since, if as contended by the workmen and the Learned Advocate General, I am bound by any decisions of the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution on the questions relating to the validity of the constitution of the Board and the procedure to be adopted by the Government for fixing/revising the minimum wages in the manner provided under Section 5(1)(b) of the Act, a good deal of debate in support of the petitioners' case on these points would be redundant and my judgment could be shortened considerably. The heart of the case in these proceedings is enmeshed by the tangled skeins of the various arguments of the Learned Counsel for the parties on these two points and others incidental thereto and therefore it is necessary to determine the ratio decidendi in Chandra Bhavan : (1970)IILLJ403SC and State of Andhra Pradesh, 1973 -I LLJ 476 cases. 44. The provisions of Section 5 of the Act may be noted at this stage : '5. Procedure for fixing and revising minimum wages.

(3.) In Chandra Bhavan, : (1970)IILLJ403SC , the fixation of minimum wages under the procedure as provided for under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act, was challenged in this Court originally. The principal arguments, inter alia, advanced were : (a) that the procedure under Section 5(1)(b) should have been followed and not the one under Section 5(1)(a); (b) that the appointment of Government officials as independent members of the Board had vitiated its composition. Both these contentions were rejected by the Division Bench of this Court. That was a case of fixation of minimum wages under the procedure prescribed in Section 5(1)(a) and not revision/ fixation of such wages under Section 5(1)(b). This Court held that consultation with the Board was not compulsory in the case of initial fixation of minimum rates of wages (See para 92 of the decision). Hence, the construction of Section 5(1)(b) and the proviso were not considered by this Court insofar as it related to revision of minimum wages. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of this Court in : (1970)IILLJ403SC on both these points. On the first point, the Supreme Court ruled : 'The legislature has prescribed two different procedures for collecting the necessary data, one contained in Section 5(1)(a) and the other in Section 5(1)(b). In either case it is merely a procedure for gathering the necessary information. The Government is not bound by the advice given by the committee appointed under Section 5(1)(a). Discretion to select one of the two procedures prescribed for collecting the data is advisedly left to the Government. In the case of a particular employment, the Government may have sufficient data in its possession to enable it to formulate proposals under Section 5(1)(b). Therefore, it may not be necessary for it to constitute a committee to tender advice to it but in the case of another employment it may not be in possession of sufficient data. Therefore it might be necessary for it to constitute a committee to collect the data and tender its advice. If the Government is satisfied that it has enough material before it to enable it to proceed under Section 5(1)(b) it can very well do so.' Relying on this observation, Messrs M. C. Narasimhan and K. Subba Rao for some of the Unions maintained that the procedure under Section 5(1)(b) of the Act is merely for gathering the necessary information and thus understood, the proviso has to be understood as merely directory and not mandatory and therefore the petitioners can not challenge the procedure adopted by. the Government in these cases.