RAM AND COMPANY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are petitions by the owners or lessees of rice mills in Tiruppur and surroundings places filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of writs of certiorari to quash the order of the Government made in G.O.Ms. No. 660, Labour and Employment, dated 16th July, 1976. That was a notification issued by the Government under cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) and sub-s.(3) of S.3 and sub-s.(2) of S.5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 19481948 (Central Act XI of 1948) hereinafter referred to as the Act, revising the minimum rates of wages revised in the Industries, Labour and Co-operation Department Notification No. 911 of 1961, dated 22nd February, 1961, published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 1st March, 1961. The said notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 28th July, 1976.

(2.) THOUGH several grounds have been urged in the affidavits filed in support of these writ petitions, to challenge the validity of the aforesaid notification, since we are allowing these writ petitions on a very short ground, it is unnecessary to refer to all those grounds.Section3 of the Act provides for the appropriate Government fixing minimum rates of wages for various employees as well as revising those rates from time to time. Section5 of the Act deals with the procedure for fixing and revising minimum wages.Section5(1) of the Act provides that in fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled employment for the first time under this Act or in revising minimum rates of wages so fixed, the appropriate Government shall either -

(3.) THE next question is, what is the consequence of this position in law ? Mr. M. R. Narayanaswamy, learned counsel for some of the petitioners, contended that the consequences is that the entire notification which was issued by the Government has become vitiated, and, therefore, is liable to be quashed. THE learned Government Pleader on the other hand, sought to contend that there had been no failure on the part of the Government, that if a particular member did not participate in the meetings of the committee, the Government could not be blamed and that therefore, the ultimate notification issued by the Government cannot be challenged. This argument is misconceived, in view of the fact that there was no failure on the part of the Personnel Officer for the time being of the Century Flour Mills Ltd., to participate in the meetings after 31st May, 1975, because no notice of any meeting whatever was admittedly sent to such Personnel Officer after 31st May, 1975.