DEVASSY Vs. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are by persons described as small scale growers of rubber in this State. They complain of the implementation recently, of a notification issued dated 20 3 1974 under the Minimum Wages Act, making the minimum wage fixed thereunder applicable to the agricultural workers under the small scale rubber growers of the State. In some cases, for non implementation of the Act and the Rules notices had been issued for rectification of defects; in some, things had proceeded further, and criminal prosecutions had been either commenced or threatened for nonconformity with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The petitions challenge the implementation of the notification and the proceedings by way of criminal prosecution or otherwise.

(2.) Arguments, addressed mostly by Mr. K. S Sebastian, were an admixture, largely of considerations of hardship and distress and the impolitic nature of the implementation of the notification against the petitioners, flavoured a little, with a tinge of the law. The Write up in the "Deepika" dated 17-2-1976, and "Manorama" dated 2-4-1976. were freely indented. The drift of the grievance was that the implementation of the impugned notification with respect to the agricultural labourers of small scale rubber growers would wreck their estate and bring about their extermination. Indeed, it was said that the small scale growers and their estates were not meant or intended to be covered by the Minimum Wages Act or the notifications issued thereunder. S 3 clause [1] [b] of the Minimum Wages Act confers on the appropriate Government, the power to review at such intervals as they think fit, not exceeding five years, the minimum rates of wages and revise the said rates. S.5 provides that in fixing or revising the minimum wages, the appropriate Government shall appoint committees and sub committees to hold inquiries and advise it in respect of such fixation or revision. S.7 provides for the appointment of an Advisory Board; S.9 provides for the composition of the Committees and the Advisory Board. They are to consist of persons nominated by the appropriate Government, representing employers and employees in the scheduled employments and independent persons. It is in pursuance of these provisions that the notification fixing minimum wages was revised on 20-3-1974. Minimum or basic wages were fixed for the various classes of workers in the various forms of employment. In paragraphs, under the head "full employment" it stated that the minimum wages notified above were based on the assumption that the employers will provide work for their workers throughout the year, failing which, the workers were to be given their minimum wages for the days on which they are involuntarily unemployed. But the obligation of the employer, it was stated, was only to offer some kind of work connected with the plantation, and the worker who refused to accept that work, will forfeit his claim for wages. The petitioners complained that in the case of small scale growers it was impossible for them to provide work throughout the year, and that notification was impossible of compliance in their case. This, it was said, should furnish another indication that the notification dated 20-3-1974 would not have application to small scale rubber growers. Prosecution was threatened in the light of R.29 and 30A of the Kerala Minimum Wages R.1958 read with S.22 (b) of the Act.

(3.) Strong reliance was placed by the petitioners on S.1 clause (4) of the Plantations Labour Act 1951 which provided that the Act shall apply only to any lands used or intended to be used, inter alia, for growing rubber which admeasures 10.117 hectares or more, and in which 30 or more persons are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months. This was related to the definition of "plantation'' in S 2(f) of the same Act as 'any plantation to which this Act applies'. From these provisions it was argued that a small scale rubber grower was outside the purview of the Minimum Wages Act. S.2 (iii) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936, introduced by the Amendment Act 53 of 1964, was stressed. That defined "plantation" as having the same meaning as in clause (f) of S.2 of the Plantations Labour Act 1951. There is nothing to link the Minimum Wages Act with the definitions in the two other Acts as mentioned by the petitioners. The purpose, scope and object of the Acts seem to be different. They are also spread over into such different periods or points of time as 1936 (Payment of Wages Act), 1948 (the Minimum Wages Act), and 1951 (the Plantations Labour Act). The earliest of these, as its title enacts, is to regulate payment of wages to certain classes of persons employed in industries. The Minimum Wages Act, 1948, on the other hand, was meant to provide for minimum rates of wages in certain employments. The concept of minimum wage is that it is independent of the capacity of the industry to pay, or the size of the unit of industry. It is a basic necessity or life for labour to exist. The Plantations Labour Act is a social welfare legislation to provide for the welfare of labour and to regulate the conditions of labour. It is difficult to regard the three Acts as in pari materia or as forming parts of one integrated piece of legislation; so that there would be no justification to understand the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act in the light of the provisions of the other two Acts. The rule regarding construction of statutes in pari materia was expounded by the Supreme Court in M/s Shah & Co , Bombay v. State of Maharashtra & Another ( AIR 1967 SC 1877 ) as follows: