MURUGA HOME INDUSTRIES Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these batch of writ petitions, the managements of beedi industries, Tamil Nadu, have challenged the impugned notification issued by the first respondent, the Government of Tamil Nadu in exercise of its powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 and sub-section (1)(b), sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, revising the minimum wages of the Schedule, Part I, entry 3, relating to employment in any tobacco (including beedi making) manufactory, in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Government had fixed the minimum wages for employment in beedi making in April, 1991. See (1991 78 IFJ (st) 180), as follows : SCHEDULE ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. Class of Basic Rates of No. work wages ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) (2) (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Rs.) 1. For rolling 1, 000 jadi beedis irrespective of size. 13.25

(2.) FOR rolling 1, 000 Sada beedis irrespective of size. 13.05 (including mukkudal type of beedis) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The impugned notification 1993 82 IFJ (st) 253 has revised the minimum wages as follows : ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sl. Class of Minimum Rates of No. work wages ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (1) (2) (3) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (Rs.) 1. FOR rolling 1, 000 jadi beedis irrespective of size. 16.25 2. FOR rolling 1, 000 Sada beedis irrespective of size. 16.05 (including mukkudal type of beedis) ------------------------------------------------------------------------In all these batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have not impleaded the workers or the unions representing the beedi industry. In W.M.P. No. 297 of 1994 in Writ Petition No. 7923 of 1993 and W.M.P. No. 776 of 1994 in Writ Petition No. 7925 of 1993, the District Beedi Workers' Union, represented by its general secretary and the Jolarpettai Beedi Workers' Union represented by its president, respectively, were impleaded as per order of this court on April 25, 1994, and they have been impleaded as R-2 and R-4, respectively, and they have filed counter-affidavits. 2. Learned counsel for the respective writ petitioners submitted their contentions, on the interpretation of section 5(1)(b) and sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). On the other hand, Mr. Chandru, learned counsel for the impleaded parties in Writ Petitions Nos. 7923 and 7925 of 1993 has raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground that the respective workers or their unions have not been impleaded as parties to the proceedings. In all other writ petitions, there is no representation on behalf of the employees or their unions from the respective beedi industries and, therefore, he submitted that the writ petitions ought to be dismissed as not maintainable by this court on the preliminary ground itself.

(3.) HE also referred to a Division Bench ruling of this Court in T. R. Sukumaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1978 (53) FJR 301, wherein it is observed as follows :