Essential services notification upheld in substance, but wage regulation failed for lack of adequate consultation with affected employers and workers.
Rule 126-AA(1) authorised a State notification declaring employments essential for public safety or for maintaining community supplies, and the Court held that a notification covering several employments was not invalid merely because it referred to both purposes or a broad class of work. The Governor had formed the requisite opinion, so the declaration was sustained in substance, but veneer mills were not shown on the record to be essential for the stated purposes and were excluded. Rule 126-AA(4) permitted regulation of wages and service conditions in essential employments, yet the power could not be exercised solely on subjective satisfaction; some consultation with affected employers and employees was required. The wage and allowance notifications were therefore invalid.
Issues: (i) Whether the notification declaring specified employments as essential services under Rule 126-AA(1) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 was valid, except as regards veneer mills; (ii) Whether the notifications regulating wages and granting ad hoc cost of living allowance under Rule 126-AA(4) were valid.
Issue (i): Whether the notification declaring specified employments as essential services under Rule 126-AA(1) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 was valid, except as regards veneer mills.
Analysis: Rule 126-AA(1) empowered the State Government, on forming the requisite opinion, to declare by notification that an employment or class of employment was essential for securing public safety or for maintaining supplies and services necessary to the life of the community. A notification covering multiple employments was not invalid merely because it dealt with a large number of employments or mentioned both purposes. The Court held that the Governor had formed the requisite opinion and that the notification could not be struck down as colourable or mala fide merely on the basis of the form of the notification. However, on the material before it, veneer mills could not reasonably be treated as essential for the stated purposes.
Conclusion: The notification under Rule 126-AA(1) was valid in substance, but it was invalid only insofar as it applied to veneer mills.
Issue (ii): Whether the notifications regulating wages and granting ad hoc cost of living allowance under Rule 126-AA(4) were valid.
Analysis: Rule 126-AA(4) conferred a wide power to regulate wages and other conditions of service in essential employments, but the Court held that the power was not intended to be exercised merely on the subjective satisfaction of Government. Because the order could seriously disturb settled industrial relations, some consultation with the affected employers and employees was necessary before action could be taken. The consultation shown on the record was held insufficient to satisfy that requirement. On that ground, the notifications under Rule 126-AA(4) could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The notifications under Rule 126-AA(4) were invalid.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded in part. The declaration of essential services was upheld except for veneer mills, while the wage-regulating notifications were set aside.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
