R.P.C PAPER MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND SKILLS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are companies registered under the provisions of the Companies Act engaged in paper production and allied activities. In the writ petition, the petitioners challenge Ext.P5 Notification dated 9.5.2017, whereby, the State Government fixed the minimum wages of employees engaged in the paper industry in accordance with the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The challenge against Ext.P5 Notification is premised primarily on three contentions, namely, that the Notification was published by the State Government, after considering the recommendations of a Sub-Committee that was constituted to advise the Government in the matter of fixing the minimum wages, and the said Committee comprised of representatives of employers, who did not have any connection with the paper industry, for which the minimum wages was fixed. The second ground of challenge against Ext.P5 Notification is that, while the Sub-Committee had called for the objections of the persons concerned against the proposals in the draft Notification, and the petitioners had responded to the said Notification and submitted their objections within the time permitted under the Notification, the petitioners were thereafter not called for any personal hearing before finalising the proposals leading to Ext.P5 Notification. The contention therefore is that there was a violation of a fair procedure, which in turn led to an erroneous fixation of minimum wages by the State Government. Thirdly, it is contended that, as per the provisions of Section 3(1A) of the Minimum Wages Act, the State Government could have refrained from fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled employment, in which, it was found that there were less than 1000 employees engaged in such employment in the whole State. It is pointed out that, in the instant case, the said provision could have been invoked finding that the total number of persons employed in the paper industry was less than 1000. The contention therefore is that there was no need for the State Government to fix a minimum rate of wages in respect of the paper industry within the State.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, wherein, with reference to section 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, and in particular, the constitution of the Committee and Sub-Committee, it is stated that all that the Section envisages is that the employers and employees in the scheduled employment should have representation in the Committees constituted as per section 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, but it is not necessary that there should be representatives of employers and employees of any particular scheduled employment. The decisions of this Court in Jayachandran v. State of Kerala - [1984 KLT 903] and Kerala Hotel and Restaurant Association v. State of Kerala - [1988 (2) KLT 344] are cited in support of the said contention. It is further stated that the Sub Committee that was constituted by the State Government held sittings in different Districts, and employees and employers representing the paper industry and paper products industry attended the hearing and put forward their suggestions. The preliminary Notification was published as early as on 29.2.2016, and it was thereafter, and after considering the objections put forward by the representatives of the industry that the final Notification [Ext.P5] was issued by the State Government.

(3.) I have heard Sri. M.Sreekumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners as also Sri. K.V. Sohan, the learned State Attorney for the State Government.