DELTA HAMLIN LIMITED Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner impugned the notification No. 5/10/34-HIII (4)-90/3268, dated 22nd February 1990, copy Annexure P-3, published by the Union Territory Administration revising the minimum rates of wages payable by 40 Scheduled Employments on the pleas that (i) it has not been issued by a competent authority and (ii) it has not been preceded by a legal or valid proposal as envisaged by Section 5 (1) (b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

(2.) WHILE elaborating his stand, the learned counsel urged that in the instant case the appropriate government, as envisaged by Section 2 (b) (ii) of the Act, was the State Government According to him, neither the Union Territory Administration can be styled or held to be a State Government nor the notification published in the name of the Administrator, has been authenticated by a competent authority. Qua the stand at (ii), it is maintained by the learned counsel that in the absence of a legal and valid proposal published in the form of a notification in the official gazette, as envisaged by Section 5 (1) (b) of the Act, the fixation or revision of minimum wages as has been done vide Annexure P-3 stands vitiated. According to the learned counsel, the so called notice published in the instant case, copy Annexure P-1, was defective inasmuch as the appropriate Government failed specify to the date on which the proposal with regard to revision of minimum wages was to be considered by it.

(3.) HAVING given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter in the light of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, and the material an record, we, however, find no merit in either of the two contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.