CHIEF OFFICER BHAVNAGAR NAGARPALIKA Vs. MEGHJIBHAI UGABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the correctness of the judgment and order passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 ('the Act' for brief) on 30/10/1979 in Minimum Wages Miscelleneous Applications Nos. 2 to 7 of 1978. Thereunder the Authority under the Act accepted the claim of each individual workman to the extent of the short payment made to him by the petitioner and also awarded compensation to the tune of four times the excess amount awarded to him thereunder. A copy of the judgment and order passed by the Authority under the Act is annexed as Exh. 'A' to this petition. In the process of challenging the judgment and order at Exh. 'A' to this petition, the petitioner has also sought declaration that provisions contained in Sec. 20(3)(i) of the Act are ultra vires Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are not many. Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 were employed by the petitioner to work as watchmen. They were paid Rs. 75.00 per month as wages. They felt that the wages paid to them at the rate of Rs. 75.00 per month were not what they were entitled to under the Act. According to them, they were required to perform duties for 11 hours a day as night watchmen. They therefore moved the Authority under the Act for payment of the difference between the amount payable to them under the Act and the actual payment made to them by the petitioner. Each of them made a separate application for the purpose. Their applications came to be registered as Minimum Wages Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 2 to 7 of 1978. Those applications were resisted by the petitioner on various grounds including the lack of jurisdiction and all other relevant technical pleas. It appears that the Authority under the Act thought it fit to dispose of all those applications by its common judgment and order passed on 30/10/1979. As aforesaid, its copy, is at Exh. 'A' to this petition. This judgment and order at Exh. 'A' is challenged in this petition. The petitioner has also challenged the vires of Sec. 20(3)(i) of the Act conferring the powers on the Authority to pronounce such judgment and order.

(3.) The challenge to the constitutional validity of Sec. 20(3)(i) of the Act is based on the ground that it is left to the Authority under the Act to determine the quantum of compensation as it thinks fit without providing any guidelines whatsoever for exercise of such discretionary power. In other words, what is contended by Shri D. U. Shah, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, in support of this petition is that the power to award compensation conferred on the Authority under Sec. 20(3)(i) of the Act is absolutely arbitrary and is therefore offending the guarantee of equality enshrined in Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. Shri Shah for the petitioner has submitted that the guarantee of equality would connote absence of any kind of arbitrary power whatsoever. As against this, Shri Nayak for respondent No. 7 and Shri Zaveri for respondents Nos. 1 to 6 have contended that the guidelines are found in the Act as well as in the relevant provisions contained in Sec. 20 of the Act. According to Shri Nayak and Shri Zaveri for the respondents, it is difficult to hold that Sec. 20(3)(i) of the Act confers unguided arbitrary powers on the Authority to determine the quantum of compensation at his sweet-will. In that view of the matter, runs their submission, the constitutional validity of the said provisions will have to be upheld.