MIZAR GOVINDA ANNAPPA PAI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point which arises for consideration in this batch of petitions is: Whether the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 5(2) of the Minimum Wages Act (in short Act) has the power to issue a notification revising the minimum wages with retrospective effect?

(2.) The petitioners are engaged in cashewnut processing industry in which the minimum wages was revised by the impugned notification for the benefit of the employees of the cashew-industry. The petitioners are the employers in these petitions. It transpires that there was no revision of minimum wages since the year 1975 and therefore a Committee was constituted by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act to go into the question of revision of minimum wages for this industry. That Committee made its recommendation prescribing the minimum wages in terms of the impugned notification with effect from First January 1983. The Committee, as required under Section 5(1) of the Act, consisted of the employers amongst whom were the petitioners, the representatives of the employees and independent members. There is no dispute about the constitution of the Committee and there is also no dispute about the rate of wages recommended by the Committee. The only dispute now is whether it should come into effects from 1-1-1983 as recommended by this Committee or whether it should come into effect from 1-12-1983 i.e., after 3 months from the date of notification. The impugned notification in question was published in the Gazette on the 26th of November 1983 to come into effect from 1-1-1983. That means to say the State Government had given retrospective effect to the proposals made by the Committee constituted for the revision of wages.

(3.) Sri Tukaram S. Pai, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that regard being had to the plain language of Section 5(2) of the Act, the Government could have issued the notification only with prospective effect and in the absence of anything in Section 5(2) of the Act which expressly or by the implication confers on the Government the power to issue notification with retrospective effect, the impugned notification is bad in law. He submitted that the Government being a delegates of the power under Section 5(2) of the Act, unless by express words in Section 5(2) or by necessary implication such power is conferred on the Government it cannot in the exercise of its rule making power give retrospective effect to the impugned notification.