ACHUTHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS, three in number, challenge the validity of Ext. P1 notification issued by Government fixing minimum rates of wages payable to employees engaged in Cinema Theatres within the State. Petitioners 1 and 2 are owners of Cinema Theatres and 3rd petitioner is an Association of exhibitors of Cinematograph films, either owned by them in proprietary or partnership concerns or on hire. It is averred that the third petitioner has a membership of 1370 out of total 1400 Cinema Theatres in Kerala.

(2.) GOVERNMENT of Kerala as per notification dated 21. 7. 1984 issued under Section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" , added "employment in Cinema Theatres" to the Schedule to the Act. Thereafter they appointed a Committee to hold enquiries to advise it in respect of the fixation of minimum rates of wages in respect of the employees in the Theatres. Committee was constituted by 11 persons representing the employees, 11 persons representing the employers and 3 independent members. One among the independent members was appointed chairman. That Committee submitted report dated 22. 10. 1987. On the basis of that report, Government issued Ext. P1 notification, G. O. (Rt.) 1810/87/lbr, dated 3. 12. 1987 fixing the minimum rates of wages payable to the employees engaged in Cinema Theatres in the State. This notification is challenged on three counts.

(3.) SECTION 5 read with Section 9 of the Act enables the Government to appoint a Committee to hold enquiries for advising it for the fixation of minimum rates of wages in respect of a schedule employment. The Committee shall consist of persons to be nominated by the Government representing the employers and employees in the scheduled employment, who shall be equal in number. In the instant case, the Committee was constituted by nominating 11 representatives of the employees and 11 others to represent the employers. It is the petitioners' case that out of those nominated to represent the employers, 1st and 2nd were Managers of Theatres and 4th was representing the association of film distributors. It is their further case that persons ranked 5 and 8 had no connection whatsoever with the Cinema business. Lastly it was contended that the 3rd, 7th, 9th, 10th and 11th nominees were individual proprietors of Cinema Theatres and hence they cannot be considered as persons interested in the industry. On this basis, it was argued that the composition of the Committee was not in terms with the provisions of the Act.