VARGHESE PAUL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the judgment dismissing O. P. No. 872 of 1978. The petitioner in the Original Petition challenged Exts. P2 and P7. Ext. P2 is a notification dated 12-8-1977 published in the Kerala Gazette whereby minimum rates of wages were fixed in respect of employees employed in the manufacture of Ayurvedic and Allopathic medicines. Ext. P7 dated 6-3-1978 is a show cause notice issued to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent as to why action should not be taken for non compliance of the provisions of the statute.

(2.) Ext. P1 dated 28-10-1972 is a notification published by the Government in the Kerala Gazette No. 44 dated 7-11-1972 whereby a committee was appointed to hold enquiries and advise the Government in the matter of revision of minimum rates of wages relating to the employment in shops and establishments and fixation of minimum wages relating to employment in the manufacture of Ayurvedic and Allopathic medicines. Representatives of employees and employers in the scheduled employments were members of the committee. A retired Additional District Judge was the Chairman of the committee. At the time of the constitution of the committee under Ext. P1, Ayurvedic and Allopathic medicines had not been included in the schedule to the Act. However, by a subsequent notification dated 27-5-1975, part I of the schedule was amended to include that particular employment also. A report of the committee dated 12-8-1976 (Ext. P3) was submitted to the Government on the basis of which notification dated 12-8-1977 (Ext. P2) was issued by the Government in the Kerala Gazette fixing the minimum wages applicable to the employees employed in the manufacture of Ayurvedic and Allopathic medicines. On 6-3-1978 the 3rd respondent issued Ext. P7 show cause notice to the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner raised various contentions in support of his challenge against Exts.P2 and P7, but bis main contention has been that Ext. P2 was invalid for the reason that it was the result of a report prepared by a committee which was not constituted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the statute. Although the other contentions of the petitioner, with which we do not deal, for they are no longer pressed at the bar, were rejected by the learned Judge, some of the observations in the judgment indicate that the main contention of the petitioner as to the invalidity of the notification, Ext. P2. appeared to be of some substance, but the learned Judge dismissed the Original Petition on the ground that it was belated. The learned Judge observed that the petitioner was guilty of laches in so far as he approached this Court only on 20-3-1978, whereas Ext. P2 notification bad been issued as early as 12-8-1977. In our view the delay was much longer, a point to which we shall presently revert.