HARI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a group of 16 writ applications challenging the validity of Notification No. F. (12) Lab. /63, dated the 31st July, 1965 (Ex. 3) published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary dated the 31st July, 1965, having been issued by the Rajasthan State under the Minimum Wages Act (No. 11) of 1948, hereinafter called the Act, purporting to revise the minimum rates of wages foployees employed in the Mica Mines throughout the State of Rajasthan in accordance with the schedule given thereunder. THIS notification, as stated therein, was made under sec. 3 read with sub-sec. (2) of sec. 5 of the Act by the respondent State in pursuance of notification No. LWI (1) 2 (20) 58, dated the 27th June, 1960 of the Ministry of Labour and Employment of the Government of India by which the President of India acting under Art. 258 (1) of the Constitution had delegated to the State Government functions of the Central Government to review and revise the minimum rates of wages for employees employed in mica mines situated in this State. The several petitioners in these writ petitions are employers engaged in the business of mica mining, that is, the manufacture and sale thereof in thtn this State.

(2.) THE material facts leading up to these writ applications may shortly be stated as follows. To start with, the respondent State had fixed minimum wages for workmen employed in mica mines throughout Rajasthan by a notification dated the 29th March, 1952. This notification came to be challenged before this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 58 of 1955 (N. K. Jain vs. THE Labour Commissioner, Rajasthan), and by its decision dated the 27th August, 1956, which is reported as ILR (1957) VII Rajasthan 74, that notification was held to be invalid inasmuch as the committee which was appointed by the State under sec. 5 (1) of the Act to advise it in the matter of the fixation of the rates in question had not been lawfully composed in accordance with certain essential requirements of sec. 9 of the Act, and consequently the notification of 1952 was struck down. I shall have occasion to refer to this case at some length hereafter.

(3.) ON a like question having arisen before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Narottamdass vs. P. B. Gowarikar (2), a division bench of that Court dissented from the Punjab view. Dixit C. J. speaking for the court laid down that "independent persons" as used in Sec. 9 connoted persons who were independent not only of the employers and of the employees but also of the State Government. The learned Chief Justice was of the view that the Government were not absolutely dis-interested in a matter like this particularly when it controlled or ran a scheduled employment' or employments. Reference was also made in support of this argument to Articles 42 and 43 of the Constitution which expressly enjoined inter alia that the State shall make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and that it shall endeavour to secure by suitable legislation or economic organisation or any other way a living wage ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure, social and cultural opportunities and, therefore felt persuaded to hold that the State was actively interested in wage-earners and in the matter of fixation of minimum wages in any scheduled employment. The learned Chief Justice also took note of the fact that a Government servant's freedom of action and thought was limited by the fact that he was always likely to be influenced by the policy of the Government. For these reasons, the bench held that the appointment of an official as the chairman of the Board was wholly illegal, and from this the further conclusion was drawn that if the board was not validly constituted, then it did not exist in law and that any consultation with such a Board would not be a valid consultation contemplated under the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 5.