GUJARAT STATE BAKERS FEDERATION Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gujarat State Bakers' Federation and two other members of the said Federation have filed this petition challenging the Notification No. KHR- 226-MWA-5581-37864-M (2) dated 27th March, 1986 issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Annexure A to the petition) and for appropriate writ declaring clause 7 thereof as ultra vires the Constitution of India.

(2.) It is stated in details that the petitioner Association is having 200 to 300 Members spread throughout the State of Gujarat. They are producing bread, biscuits, cookies, cakes, etc. There are very few bakeries where the production activity is carried on with the help of machines and most of the bakeries are having large number of workers. The respondent State has the power to fix minimum rates of wages for the workers employed by the petitioners and in fact, the respondent decided and followed the procedure prescribed by the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In fact, the respondent was required to follow the procedure prescribed by Sec. 5 of the Act and/or was required to either act under Sec. 5(a) and Sec. 5(b) of the Act. It is highlighted that the respondent decided to follow the procedure under Sec. 5(a) of the Act and appointed a Committee comprising of the representatives of Labour, Industry, etc. The said Committee formulated the proposals and advised the State Government. Pursuant to the report of the Committee under Sec. 5(2) of the Act, the State Government published a notification dated 27-3-1983, which is produced at Annexure A to this petition. Clause 7 of the Explanation to the Notification reads as under :

(3.) It appears that the Committee was informed that the bakery owners who are giving perquisites of different nature are making deductions on account of such perquisites from the wages payable to the workmen and the Committee had also recommended that if deductions in continuation of the perquisites are given simultaneously, directions for evaluation of such perquisites and deductions of their value from the wages payable to the workmen are also to be given. It is alleged that while issuing the notification, the Government has failed to make such provision. Clause 7, therefore, apart from being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution, also puts an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to trade. There may be a reasonable restriction to prescribe minimum rates of wages of workmen but directions to continue the perquisites or the facilities given to the employees, cannot be made a part of the minimum wages payable to the workmen. Such direction will have a force of law since the minimum wages notification has its impact and has to be complied with on the pain of prosecution and penalty.