1975 (9) TMI 178 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds validity of Wage Committee, Advisory Board, and minimum wage notification.

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER Versus HARI RAM NATHWANI & ORS.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Rajasthan High Court's judgment and order, and dismissing the connected writ application. It ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the constitution of the Wage Committee and Advisory Board.2. Legality of the Advisory Board appointing a sub-committee and considering its report.3. Validity of the notification dated 31-7-1965 fixing minimum wages.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the constitution of the Wage Committee and Advisory Board:The primary issue was whether the constitution of the Wage Committee and the Advisory Board was valid under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Rajasthan High Court had ruled that the constitution was invalid because the Professor of the Government College was not considered an independent member, and the five Government officers on the Board were also not seen as independent members. However, the Supreme Court referenced a recent decision in The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Narayana Velur Beedi Manufacturing Factory and others, which upheld the view that Government officers could be considered independent persons under Section 9 of the Act. The Court stated, 'The language of s. 9 does not contain any indication whatsoever that persons in the employment of the Government would be excluded from the category of independent persons.' Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that the constitution of the Wage Committee and the Advisory Board was valid as the Government was not an employer in the Mica Mines.2. Legality of the Advisory Board appointing a sub-committee and considering its report:The second issue was whether the Advisory Board had the authority to appoint a sub-committee and consider its report. The Supreme Court acknowledged that while the Advisory Board could devise its own procedure for making recommendations, it had no power to appoint a rival sub-committee to the one appointed by the Government and include non-members of the Board in it. This was deemed an irregularity. However, the Court determined that this irregularity did not nullify the recommendations of the Advisory Board or the final decision of the Government. The Court emphasized, 'The irregularity, even characterising it as an illegality, committed by the Advisory Board in taking into consideration the report of the sub-committee was not such as to nullify its recommendation contained in its report, or, in any event, the final decision of the Government contained in the impugned notification.'3. Validity of the notification dated 31-7-1965 fixing minimum wages:The final issue was the validity of the notification dated 31-7-1965, which fixed the minimum wages. The Rajasthan High Court had invalidated this notification based on the aforementioned issues. However, the Supreme Court found that the Government had followed the procedure outlined in Section 5(1)(a) of the Act, which did not mandatorily require consultation with the Advisory Board. The Court noted, 'After all, the recommendations made by the Board even on consideration of the report of the Sub-committee along with that of the Committee was the advice of the Board. The Government did accept it but accepted it after some modification.' Thus, the Supreme Court held that the notification was valid and the proceedings initiated pursuant to it could not be quashed.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the Rajasthan High Court, and dismissed the connected writ application. The Court concluded that the constitution of the Wage Committee and Advisory Board was valid, the irregularity in the Advisory Board's procedure did not invalidate its recommendations, and the notification dated 31-7-1965 fixing minimum wages was valid. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.