SHANTILAL JETHALAL VYAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein who are the members of the Gujarat Bidi Karkhana Owners Association have filed this petition on their own behalf and on behalf of the Bidi Manufacturers of the State of Gujarat; and in this petition they have challenged the Notification dated May 7 1965 issued by the Government of Gujarat fixing minimum wages in the scheduled employment under the Minimum Wages Act viz. employment in any tobacco (including Bidi-making) manufactory. The petitioners contend that for the various reasons which they have set out in the petition this Notification is illegal and void and therefore they have prayed for a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus on the footing that the impugned Notification is ultra vires the Minimum Wages Act and also ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14 and 301 of the Constitution of India. They have further asked for a declaration and they have prayed for a writ of mandamus restraining the State Government its agents and servants from implementing the impugned Notification. On May 23 1962 acting under the powers conferred upon it by sec. 9 of the Minimum Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Government of Gujarat appointed a Committee consisting of three persons Madhavlal Shah as the Chairman Vijaykumar Trivedi as representing Labour and Gokalbhai Patel as representing employers in the scheduled employment shown at item No. 3 in the Schedule i.e. employment in any tobacco (including Bidi making) manufactory. This Committees submitted its report and thereafter the Gujarat Government considered the report. The Advisory Board set up under the Act was also consulted and thereafter revised minimum rates of wages as fixed by the earlier Notifications of the Government of Bombay prior to the bifurcation of the bilingual State of Bombay were refixed.

(2.) At the hearing before us Mr. Vakbaria on behalf of the petitioners submitted firstly that the impugned Notification was not issued in accordance with the provisions of secs. 3 4 5 7 and 9 of the Act. He contended that there was a failure on the part of the Government to comply with the provisions of these sections inasmuch as (a) the Committee was not headed by an independent person (b) that there was no representation of employers on the Committee (c) that the Advisory Board did not contain a representative of any scheduled employment (d) that the minimum wages were not fixed in accordance with the cost of living index as required under the Act and (e) what has been fixed by the Notification is a fair wage and not a minimum wage. The second submission of Mr. Vakharia was that the impugned Notification violates Art. 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as it discriminates between employers similarly situated. In this connection the challenge was on the ground that the Notification has fixed zones for the purpose of payment of minimum wages and explanation 1 to the Schedule to the Notification by which zones 1 and 2 were fixed was violative of Art. 14 inasmuch as the cities of Ahmedabad and Surat which have very widely varying populations were grouped together in Zone No. 1; whereas cities which were more populated than Surat namely Baroda Rajkot etc. were put together in Zone No. 2. The further contention on the ground of the alleged violation of Art. 14 was that there was discrimination between employers supplying Bidi leaves and those who were not supplying Bidi leaves; and on this ground also there was violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The third and the last submission urged by Mr. Vakharia was that the Notification in question violates Art. 301 of the Constitution.

(3.) As regards the first submission of Mr. Vakharia it may be pointed out that under sec. 9 of the Act it has been provided that each of the committees sub-committees and the Advisory Board shall consist of persons to be nominated by the appropriate Government representing employers and employees in the scheduled employments who shall be equal in number and independent persons not exceeding one-third of its total number of members; one of such independent persons shall be appointed the Chairman by the appropriate Government. Madhavlal Shah who was appointed the Chairman of this Committee was according to the averments in the petition an active Congress Worker and was a supporter of the party in power in the Gujarat State and therefore he could not be said to be an independent person who could be appointed the Chairman of the Committee which was appointed to make recommendations regarding the minimum wages. This point is now covered by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Digvijaysinhji Salt Works v. State XI G.L.R. 342. There the Division Bench of which I was a member held after considering the different authorities on the point and also on examining the scheme of sec. 9:-