SAHDEO SAHU Vs. STATE M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition by a social worker concerned with the welfare of the labourers in Chhattisgarh region of this State has been filed with a view to prevent exploitation of labourers engaged in business of lac manufactory in that region and particularly in Dhamtari Tahsil of Raipur District. It appears that the petitioner found that the poor labourers employed by the manufacturers of lac are being paid very low wages and are subjected to forced labour. He appears to have been moved by the low wages paid to these labourers and, therefore, has moved this petition to safeguard the interests of labourers thus victimised by the rich lac manufacturers. The contention is that though lac manufactory is a scheduled employment under the Minimum Wages Act, still minimum wages have not been fixed in this lac industry. Only Rs. 4. 00 per day is paid to the unskilled labour, while the skilled labour is paid Rs. 7. 60 paise per day. Apart from alleging violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in not fixing minimum wages for this industry, it is also urged that the respondents have failed in their duties to protect the fundamental right to live, of labourers employed in lac industry as guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution. Prayer, therefore, is for a direction to the respondents to fix minimum wages for workers engaged in lac industry.

(2.) THE object of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 apparently is to prevent exploitation of workers. This objective is sought to be achieved by fixation of minimum wages which an employer must pay. This statutory fixation of minimum wages is rightly justified on the ground that the workers' organisations are poorly developed and consequently their bargaining power is also poor. The various provisions under the Minimum Wages Act are, therefore, aimed at securing this objective of preventing the workers from exploitation and to secure to them an adequate return for their labour. The appropriate Government under the Act, therefore, has been given power to fix minimum rates of wages to the employees in a given employment. Section 3 of the Act provides that the appropriate Government under the Act in the given manner shall fix the minimum rates of wages payable to employees employed in an employment specified in Part I or Part II of the Schedule and in an employment added to either Part by notification under Section 27. The appropriate Government is also obliged to review at such intervals as it may think fit not exceeding five years, the minimum rates of wages so fixed and revise the minimum rates, if necessary. Employment in the lac manufactory is a scheduled employment included in Part I of the Schedule. It is, therefore, mandatory for the appropriate Government to fix the minimum rates of wages for employees in that manufactory. Minimum wages for this lac industry were fixed vide Notification No. 600-390 23, dated 8th March 1951 and by yet another Notification No. 569451-23, dated 23rd February 1956. However, vide notification dated 20th February 1965 (Annexure R-1 ). the aforesaid two notifications were rescinded for the reason that the strength of the employees in this industry was reduced to less than one thousand. This, says the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, is permissible in terms of Section 3 (1-A)of the Act which runs as follows:

(3.) THE above Section 3 (1-A) is in two parts. It starts with a non-obstante clause and the first part permits the appropriate Government to refrain from fixing minimum rates of wages as is required by Subsection (1) of Section 3 in case in a given scheduled employment, the strength of employees in the whole State is less than one thousand. Thus, despite the mandatory provision contained in Section 3 (1), the appropriate Government still may refrain from fixing minimum rates of wages provided the number of employees engaged in the industry in the whole of State is less than one thousand. The second part of this sub-section empowers the appropriate Government at any time to survey the strength of employees in a scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have not been fixed and if the strength is found to be one thousand or above, the appropriate Government shall fix minimum rates of wages for that employment. It is, therefore, clear that the power is given to the appropriate Government to refrain from fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of a scheduled employment despite the obligation created in terms of Section 3 (1) provided of course the strength of employees in a given scheduled employment is less than one thousand. Shri Deoras, learned counsel for the petitioner, argues the once the appropriate Government fixes the minimum rates of wages in a scheduled employment, terms of Section 3 (1-A) do not permit the appropriate Government to rescind the dixation of those wages even if the strength in the scheduled employment falls below one thousand. This, argues the learned counsel, is because of absence of any provisiong in that regard in Section 3 (1-A ). We, however, find ourselves unable to agree with this contention.