VADAKKEKARA KARSHAKA SAMAJOM THE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four writ petitions seek to quash a notification dated 27th December, 1968 issued by the Government of Kerala in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of Section 3 (1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, read with Section 5 (2) thereof, revising the rate of minimum wages payable to persons employed in agricultural operations in the State.

(2.) THIS notification was attacked before my learned brother, Govindan Nair, J. in O. P. Nos. 814, 1074, 1099 and 1430 of 1969, who by a common judgment dated 4th June, 1971, rejected the contentions raised against the validity of the said notification and dismissed those petitions. Two of the contentions advanced before him were alone pressed before me. In order to appreciate those contentions, it is necessary to read Section 5 of the Act, and state a few facts leading to the issue of the said notification:

(3.) THE first contention raised by counsel for the petitioners is that the above notification is bad, in so far as it enhanced the rates of wages mentioned in the notification dated 9-2-1968 issued under Section 5 (1) (b) of the Act. Counsel contended that when the Government proposes a certain rate of wages, and calls for representations in the matter, there is scope for any representation being made by an employer only if the proposed rate is high, that no representation would be made if the proposed rate is satisfactory, and that, if under such circumstances, the proposed rate is enhanced, it would be an enhancement without giving an opportunity to make any representation against the said enhancement. In my view, this is a fallacious argument. There are two parties likely to be affected by the fixation of the minimum wages, the employer and the employee. The scheme of Section 5 of the Act is that the Government makes the proposal, inviting representations of the said parties. The employer may object to the proposed rate on the ground that it is too high, while the employee may object stating that it is too low. The Government decides the question after consulting the Advisory Board and after considering the representations. The fact that the employer did not file any objection since he considered that the proposed rate was satisfactory, does not affect the jurisdiction or scope of function of the Government under Section 5 of the Act in fixing the minimum wages. In doing so the Government is as free to enhance the proposed rate as it is free to reduce the said rate. A similar contention was advanced before the Supreme Court in C. B. Boarding and Lodging v. State of Mysore The contention was repelled summarily; and in doing so, the Court said :-- We saw no substance in the contention that the Government is not competent to enhance the rate of wages mentioned in the proposals published. If it has power to reduce those rates as desired by the employers, it necessarily follows that it has power to enhance them. There is no merit in the contention that the Government must go on publishing proposals after proposals until a stage is reached where no change whatsoever is necessary to be made in the last proposal made. I, therefore, agree with my learned brother in rejecting the above contention.