1954 (10) TMI 39 - SC - Indian Laws

Chief Commissioner of Ajmer Competent under Minimum Wages Act | Constitutional Delegation Upheld

THE EDWARD MILLS CO. LTD., BEAWAR, AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF AJMER AND ANOTHER

The Court upheld the competence of the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer to function as the 'appropriate Government' under the Minimum Wages Act without a ... Whether the expression 'appropriate Government' has been defined in section 2(b) (ii) of the Minimum Wages Act to mean, in relation to any scheduled employment, not carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, the State Government? Whether the preamble to the Minimum Wages Act as well as its title indicate clearly that the intention of the Legislature was to provide for fixing minimum wages in certain employments only and that the Legislature did not intend that all employments should be brought within the purview of the Act? Whether the term of the committee, as originally fixed, expired on the 16th of July, 1952, and on and from the 17th of July all the members of the committee became functus officio? Held that:- The order made under section 94(3) of the Government of India Act should be reckoned now as an order made under article 239 of the Constitution and we are unable to agree with Mr. Chatterjee that it was beyond the competence of the President under clause (2) of article 372 to make the adaptation order mentioned above. The first contention of Mr. Chatterjee therefore fails. It is to carry out effectively the purpose of this enactment that power has been given to the 'appropriate Government' to decide, with reference to local conditions, whether it is desirable that minimum wages should be fixed in regard to a particular trade or industry which is not already included in the list. We do not think that in enacting section 27 the Legislature has in anyway stripped itself of its essential powers or assigned to the administrative authority anything but an accessory or subordinate power which was deemed necessary to carry out the purpose and the policy of the Act. The second contention of Mr. Chatterjee cannot therefore succeed. It is not disputed that the committee did not function at all and did no work after the 16th of July, 1952, and before the 21st of August next when its term was extended. No report was submitted during this period and there was no extension of time granted after the submission of the report. Assuming that the order of the 21st August, 1952, could not revive a committee which was already dead, it could certainly be held that a new committee was constituted on that date and even then the report submitted by it would be a perfectly good report. Quite apart from this, it is to be noted that a committee appointed under section 5 of the Act is only an advisory body and that the Government is not bound to accept any of its recommendations. Consequently, procedural irregularities of this character could not vitiate the final report which fixed the minimum wages. In our opinion, neither of the contentions raised in support of these appeals can succeed and both the appeals therefore should fail and stand dismissed Issues Involved:1. Competence of the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer to function as the 'appropriate Government' under the Minimum Wages Act without delegation of authority by the President under Article 239 of the Constitution.2. Validity of Section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act concerning delegation of legislative powers.3. Authority of the Chief Commissioner to extend retrospectively the term of the Advisory Committee after its expiration.4. Constitutional validity of the Minimum Wages Act in relation to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.5. Procedural irregularities in the functioning and extension of the Advisory Committee.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Competence of the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer:The appellants argued that the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer was not competent to function as the 'appropriate Government' for purposes of the Minimum Wages Act without a delegation of authority by the President under Article 239 of the Constitution. It was contended that the steps taken by the Chief Commissioner, including the issuance of the final notification on 7th October 1952, were illegal and ultra vires.The Court held that the expression 'appropriate Government' as defined in Section 2(b)(ii) of the Minimum Wages Act includes the State Government, which, in a Part C State, means the Central Government. Under Article 372 of the Constitution, existing laws continue in force until altered or repealed. The order made under Section 94(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, which allowed the Chief Commissioner to act as the 'appropriate Government,' continued to be in force under Article 372. The Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, further validated this by adapting the order to align with Article 239 of the Constitution. Thus, the Chief Commissioner was competent to function as the 'appropriate Government.'2. Validity of Section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act:The appellants contended that Section 27 of the Act, which allows the 'appropriate Government' to add employments to the schedule, amounted to an unconstitutional delegation of legislative powers. They argued that the Act did not provide any legislative policy or standard to guide the administrative authority.The Court rejected this contention, stating that the legislative policy is apparent in the Act's objective to fix minimum wages to prevent exploitation of labor. The Act aimed to apply to industries where labor conditions warranted such intervention, and local conditions could best be assessed by the administrative authority. The power given to the 'appropriate Government' was deemed an ancillary measure necessary to carry out the Act's purpose and policy. Therefore, Section 27 did not constitute an improper delegation of legislative powers.3. Authority to Extend the Term of the Advisory Committee:The appellants argued that the Chief Commissioner had no authority to extend the term of the Advisory Committee retrospectively after it expired on 16th July 1952.The Court held that Rule 3 of the rules framed under Section 30 of the Act allowed the State Government to extend the term of the committee as circumstances required. Even if the extension was granted after the original term expired, it could be considered as constituting a new committee. Since the committee is only an advisory body, procedural irregularities did not vitiate the final report fixing the minimum wages. Thus, the extension was valid.4. Constitutional Validity of the Minimum Wages Act:Mr. Seervai, supporting the second appeal, raised additional points challenging the constitutional validity of the Minimum Wages Act, arguing that it conflicted with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.The Court did not find merit in these arguments, referencing the detailed discussions in the petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Act's provisions were held to be constitutionally valid.5. Procedural Irregularities in the Advisory Committee:The appellants highlighted procedural irregularities, such as the absence of the expert member from meetings and the retrospective extension of the committee's term.The Court noted that the committee's role was advisory, and the Government was not bound to accept its recommendations. Procedural irregularities did not invalidate the final report. The expert member's absence and subsequent actions did not affect the validity of the notification fixing minimum wages.Conclusion:The Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the validity of the actions taken by the Chief Commissioner and the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. The procedural irregularities did not vitiate the final report, and the legislative delegation under Section 27 was deemed appropriate and constitutional. The appeals were dismissed with costs.