MINISTRY OF LABOUR &REHABILITATION &ANOTllER. v. TIFFIN'S BARYTES ASBESTOS & PAINTS LTD. & ANR.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

F CHlNNAPPA REDDY, J, On October 16, 1968 the Government of I~dia, Ministry of labour, Employment and Rehabilitation, issued a notification, in exercise of their powers under section 5(1) {a) and 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, appointing a Committee "to hold enquiries and advise the Central Government regarding -

G (a) the fiX"ation of minimuni rates of wages for the first time under the said Act , and

(b) the revision of minimum rates of wages already fixed by the Central Government under the said Act," ' H in respect of the Employment in Manganese, Gypsum, Berytes and Bauxite Mines, Shri D. Venkatachalam, Chief Labour Commissioner

MINISTRY OF LABOUR v. TIFFIN 1S BAllYTES [CHINNAPPA REDDY, J • I 305

(Central), .New Delhi and Shri K.K.Bhatia, Director, Labour A Bureau, Simla were appointed as independent members of the Committee while (i) Shri K.S.Mshaptra, Controller ·of Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur, (11) Shri Dev Coomer Singhi, The Jhagrakhand Collieries Private Ltd., 14/4, Gariaghat Road, Calcutta-19, (iii) Dr. S.K.Das Gupta, Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., 1, Middleton Street, Calcutta-16 (iv) Shri T.R. Goenka, Honorary B Secretary General, Federation of Indian Mining Industries, 7, N.D.s.E. Part I, New Delhi-3 and (v) Mr. s.G.A. Naidu, President of Mysore State Mine oWners' Association, Bangalore, were appoin- ted as representatives of the employers. Five other gentlemen were appointed as members of the Committee to represent the employees. Thereafter, on May 19, 1969, after considering the C advice of the Committee, the Goverranent of India ,issued a noti- fication fixing mininrum rates of wages payable to certain cate- gories of employee& in the scheduled employment in Barytes, Bawd. te, Manganese and Gypsum Mina a. The notification fixing minimum wages was questioned by several owners of mines in writ petitions filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The notifi- D cation was quashed by the High Court of Andhra Pradeah on the ground that the Committee on whose advice it was based was impro- perly constituted for two reasons : (l)'.,Shri Venkatachalam and Shri K.K. Bhatia were Government employees in the LSbour Depart- ment and were, therefore, not truly "independent' so as to be eligible to be appointed to the Committee constituted under sections 5 and 9 of the Minimum Wages Act and; (2) The so called E representatives •of the employers on the Conmittee as appointed were not representatives of the Barytes, Bauxite, Manganese and Gypsum mining industries and they were therefore ineligible. to be appointed to the Committee to represent the employers of the particular scheduled employments. · F We are afraid, lfe are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the High Court, In our opinion, Governmen.t employees, who are entrusted with the task of implementina the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, cannot; for that rea1on, be dubbed as interested and not independent persons. It may be that in a case where the - Government itself is the employer in the particu}ar scheduled employment, it may be possible to urge that Government employees are not independent persons (we express no opinion on that) but in a case where the Government itself is not an employ- er, we do not see any justification for holding that Government employees who are interested in the implementation of the Minimum Wages Act, for that reason only, become 'interested persons' and cease to be independent. The 'independent persons' contemplated by s.9 of the Act are persons who belong neither to the category

j•

306 SUPL<EME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R •

•.. A of employers nor to the category of employees, and there is no reason to think that Government employees whose task is merely to implement Parliamentary Legislation made pursuant to Directive Principles of State Policy and the State's social obligations in that direction are excluded. The term! 'independent persons', it must be eqiphasised~ is used in the section in contra distinction b to, the words' per~ons representing employers and employees in the scheduled employments'. We disagree with the view expressed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Narottamdas v. Gowarikar & Ors. [i961] 1 L.L.J. 442 and Calcutta High Court in Kohiooor Pictures (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [1961] 2 L.L.J. 141 and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bansi Lal S. Patel v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1965] 1 L.L.J. 28. We agree with the view taken C by the Punjab High Court in. Jaswant Bai v. State. of Punjab A.I.R. 1958 Punjab 425 and the Gujarat High Court in the Digvijaysiogji. Salt Works Ltd. v. State of Gujarat A.I.R. 1971 Gujarat 14. The decision of this Court in State of Rajastban v. Hari Ram Nathwani & Ors. [1976] 1 s.c.R. 641 does not assist either party. ' D There is equally no substance in the other contention which found favour with the High Court, damely, that the persons appointed to the Committee to represent the employers were ineli- gible to be appointed to the Committee as they did not represent employers in the.particular scheduled employment. The scheduled employments with which we are· concerned a~e emplo:Yment in Gypsum t mines, employment in -Barytes mines, employment in Bauxite mines and employment in manganese mines. It is not explained why the persons appointed to the Committee to represent the employers are ineligible to represent employers in the scheduled employments. The High Court merely says "on a perusal of the names of the employers' representatives, we find that none of the~ can be said 'F to be the representatives of the Barytes mines. When the minimum wages of the categories of employees are to be fixed in respect of Barytes mines, there is no point in appointing the representa- tives of other employments. The Government in its counter has not stated that any of the employers' ~epresentatives, who have been nominated to the Corrnnittee, are the representatives of the G Barytes. mines. The learned counsel appearing for the Central Government also has not been able to point out whether any one of those nominees of the Government as employers' representatives really represent the.Barytes mines or has got expert knowledge of the· employers and their working conditions in the scheduled employments of Barytes mines. We, therefore, hold that the compo- H sition of the Committee is defective in respect of the nomina- tions of the employers representatives. This is sufficient to

MINISTRY OF LABOUR v. TIFFIN'S BARYTES [CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.] 307

quash the notification which is based upon the advice of such a A defectively and irregularly constituted Committee." We are afraid that the approach of the High Ccurt was entirely wrong· For the purpose of appointing the Committee to represent the employers in a scheduled employment, it was not necessary that the person appoint~d should be engaged for profit in the particular employment. It is enough if a. nexus exists between B the persons so appointed to represent the employers in the parti- cula·r employment and the particular employment concerned. For example, it may be absurd to appoint persons engaged in the news- paper industry to a Committee to represent employers concerned in the employment of Barytes mines or Bauxite mines. The case before us is not one of that nature at all. There was no c material before the High Court nor was the High Court in a posi- tion to say that the persons appointed to the Committee to represent the. employers were entirely unconnected with or igno~ rant of the particular employments. We fail to understand how by merely looking at their names and the positions occupied by them, the High Court was able to say that they were incompetent to D represent the employers in the particular employments. The first of them was the -Controller of the Indian ~ureau of.Mines, another was the 81.cretary General of the Federation of Indian Mining Industries and yet another was the President of the Mysore State Mine OWners' Assoc;iation. All of them are intimetely connected with the mining industry and it has not been shown that they are unconnected ~ith or ignorant of the particular scheduled employ- E ments in mines. We find it impossib~e to uphold the view of the. High Court. The decision of this Court in Champak Lal H. 'lbakkar v. State of Gujarat [1980] 4 s.c.C.329, is of no assistance what- ever. In the circumstances ."we allow the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the Writ Petitions filed in the High Court. We also wish to emphasise that notifications F fixing minimum wages are not to" be lightly interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution_ on the ground of some irregulari- ties in the Constitution of the Connnittee or in the procedure adopted by the Committee. It must be remembered that the Connnittee acts only as a reconnnendatory. body and the final noti- fication fixing minimum wages has to be ~de by the Government. Notification fixing minimum wages, in. a country where wages are already minimum should not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution except on the most substantial of grounds. The legislation j.s a social welfare legislation undertaken to further the Directive Principles of btate Policy and action taken pursuant to it cannot be struck down on mere technicalities.

A.P,J, Appeals allowed.