RAMKRISHNA RAMNATH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition there Is Challenged a notification No. M. W. A. 1557-J, dated the 11th June 1958 issued under Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (No. 11 of 1948), by the then Government of Bombay. The notification is at annexure D and it has had an unenviable record of litigation arising from it. The notification was as follows : no. M. W. A. 1557-J. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 5 read with clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of that section of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 til of 1948), and after consulting the Advisory Board and in supersession of the former Government of Madhya Pradesh Labour Department Notification No. 584-451-XXIII, dated the 23rd February 1956, the Government of Bombay hereby revise the minimum rates of wages in respect of the employment in any tobacco (including bidi making) manufactory in the Vidarbha region of the State of Bombay as mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed and directs that this notification shall come into force with effect from 1st July 1958. Schedule subject to the other provisions of this Schedule, the revised minimum rates of wages payable to employees per thousand bidis (when leaves are supplied by the employer) snail be as follows :

(2.) BEFORE we deal with the present challenge to ths notification it is necessary to state a few facts as to its past history in Courts of law. That will tend to show what part of the notification still survives and the nature of the present attack upon it.

(3.) AFTER the notification was Issued, it first came to be challenged before this Court in Bidi, Bidi Leaves and Tobacco Merchants Association, Gondia v. State of Bombay, 61 Bom LR 890, and a Full Bench of this Court by a majority declared a portion of clause 6 and clause 7 of the Schedule annexed to the notification as well as the explanation appended at the foot of the notification as 'ultra vires' of the powers of the State Government under the Minimum Wages Act. The remaining provisions of the notification were held 'intra vires' of the powers of the State Government. In that case the whole notification was Impugned and all the Judges were agreed that claifses 1 and 2 thereof were 'intra vires' and valid but there was a difference of opinion as to clauses 3 to 7. One Judge held that clauses 3 to 7 were all 'ultra vires', and another that all the clauses were valid. The third Judge to whom the case was referred and upon whose opinion the that judgment was delivered held part of clause 6, clause 7 and the explanation at the foot of the notification alone as 'ultra vires'.