Minimum Wages Act validity upheld: continuity of government power, valid conditional legislation, and no defect from advisory committee extension.

A pre-Constitution order continuing in force under constitutional continuity provisions was treated as effective, so the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer could act as the appropriate Government under the Minimum Wages Act. Section 27 was upheld as valid conditional legislation because it reflected the Act's policy of fixing minimum wages while permitting notification of additional employments in light of local conditions. The extension of the Advisory Committee's term did not vitiate the wage notification, as the rules authorised such extension and the committee was only recommendatory. The legal challenges to the notification therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer was competent to act as the appropriate Government for the purposes of the Minimum Wages Act after the Constitution came into force. (ii) Whether section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act amounted to an impermissible delegation of legislative power. (iii) Whether the extension of the term of the Advisory Committee after the original term had expired was without authority and vitiated the wage notification.

Issue (i): Whether the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer was competent to act as the appropriate Government for the purposes of the Minimum Wages Act after the Constitution came into force.

Analysis: The constitutional continuity provisions preserved laws and legal instruments already in force before the Constitution. An order made under section 94(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, investing the Chief Commissioner with authority to administer the province was treated as a law in force within article 372 and, by the adaptation order, as an order under article 239 of the Constitution. The definition of Central Government in the General Clauses Act was therefore applicable to the Chief Commissioner acting within that authority.

Conclusion: The Chief Commissioner was competent to function as the appropriate Government, and the challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act amounted to an impermissible delegation of legislative power.

Analysis: The Act disclosed a legislative policy of securing fixation of minimum wages to prevent exploitation of labour, while leaving to the appropriate Government the choice of adding further employments to the Schedule according to local conditions. The power conferred was ancillary and subordinate, not a surrender of the essential legislative function. The provision was treated as conditional legislation within permissible constitutional limits.

Conclusion: Section 27 was valid and not ultra vires.

Issue (iii): Whether the extension of the term of the Advisory Committee after the original term had expired was without authority and vitiated the wage notification.

Analysis: The rules framed under the Act expressly empowered the State Government to fix and extend the committee's term as circumstances required. Even assuming the original term had expired, the committee's report remained effective because the body was advisory only and the Government was not bound by its recommendations. The procedural objection did not vitiate the final notification.

Conclusion: The extension did not invalidate the proceedings or the notification.

Final Conclusion: The legal challenges to the wage notification failed on all substantial grounds, and the appellants were not entitled to the relief sought.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-Constitution order continuing in force under article 372 and adapted to article 239 remains effective; a statutory power to add employments to a wage schedule by notification may be valid conditional legislation when guided by the Act's policy; and procedural defects in the tenure of an advisory committee do not invalidate a wage notification where the committee is only recommendatory.

---