MINISTRY OF LABOUR & REHABILITATION & ANOTHER.versusTIFFINS BARYTES ASBESTOS & PAINTS LTD. & ANR.

    302


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

                                  JULY 16, 1985

B         (O.CHINNAPPA REDDY, v.BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND v.KHALID, JJ.)

          Minimum Wages Act 1948, ss. 5(a) (9) and 9 - Appointment of
    Conmdttee to advise the Government on fixation of minimum wages
    in certain mines - Government officials and persons not belonging
    to the concerned mines appointed as members Government officials,
    when 'independent persons' as contemplated by s. 9. Whether it
C   is their duty to implement the provisions of the Act and the
    Goverrunent being not an employet - Employers    representatives   in
    the conmdttee - Whether should be engaged for profit in the
    particular employment.

          After considering the advice of the Comn!.ttee, appointed
    under ss.5(l)(a) and 9 of the Minimum Wages Act 1948, the Govern'-
0   ment of India by a Notification issued under the Act fixed the
    minimum rates of wages payable to certain categories of employees
    in the scheduled employment in certain mines • The mine-owners
    challenged the notification under Article 226 of the Constitution
    and the same was quashed by the High Court on the ground that the
    Comn!.ttee on whose advice the Notification was llased was impro-
E   perly constituted for two reasons: (l) that the Chief Labour
    Comnissioner (Central) New Delhi and Director, Labour Bureau,
    Simla, were Government employees in the Labour Department and
    were, therefore, not truly 'independent' so as to be eligible to
    be appointed to the Conmdttee constituted under ss.5 and 9 of the
    Act and (2) that the so-called representatives of the employers
F   on the Conmdttee were not representatives of the aamed mining
    industries and were, therefore, ineligible to be appointed to the
    Comnittee to represent the employers .of the particular scheduled
    employments.

            Allowing the appeal of the Union of India,
G
          HELD: l. The Government employees, who are entrusted with
    the task of implementing the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act
    1948, cannot, for that reason, be dubbed as interested and not
    independant persons. In a case where the Government itself is
    not an employer there is no justification for holding that
H   Government employees become 'interested persons' contemplated by
               MINISTRY OF LABOUR v. TIFFIN' S BARYTES            303


                                                                          A
s. 9 of the Act are persons who belong neither to the category of
employers nor to the category of employees and there is no reason
to think that Government employees are' excluded•       The term
'independent persons', is uaed in the sect.ion in contradistinc-
tion to the words 'persons representing employers and employees
in the scheduled employments'. [305 F-ti, 306 A-BJ
                                                                          B

      liaJ:Ottamdas "· GcNaribr & Ors. [1961) (1) LLJ     442;   lohi-
noor Pictures (Pvt.) Ud. v. State of West Bengal [1961) (2) LLJ
741 and Bansi Lal S. Patel v. State of Andbra Pradesh [1965]         1
LLJ 28 overruled.

       Jaswaot BaJ. v. State of Punjab A.l.R.. 1958 Punjab 425 and        c
Digv.1.jays:l.ngbji Salt Works Ud. v. State of Gujarat All 1971
Gujarat 14 approved.

      State of llajastban v. Harl Baa Batlmani & Om. [ 1976]       ( 1)
SCR 641 not applicable.
                                                                          D
     '2. The persons appointed to the Colllllittee to represent the
employers were eligible t~ be appointed to the committee. The
scheduled employments in the instant case are employment in
Gypsum, Barytes, Bauxite and Manganese mines. For the purpose of
appointing a Colllllitttee to represent the employers in the
scheduled employment, U Wiili not necessary that the persons
                                                                          E
appointed should be engaged for prof it in the particular employ-
ment. lt is enough i f a nexus exists between the persons so
appointed to represent the·employers in the particular employment
and the . particular employment concerned. There waa no material
before the High Court nor was the High Court in s position to say
that the persons appointed to the Colllllittee to represent the
                                                                          F
employers were entirely unconnected with or ignorant of the
particular employment. lt is not understood how by merely looking
at their nsmes and the position occupied by them, the High Court
waa able to say that they were incompetent to represent the
employers in the particular employments. The representatives of
the employers consisted of Controller. of , the Indian Bureau. of
                                                                              G
Mines, Secretary General of the Federation of the Indian Mining
Industries, Pre8.ident of Mysore State Mine Owners Associiltion,
etc. etc. All these persons are intimately connected with the
mining industry and it has not been shown that they were uncon-
nected with or ignorant of the particular scheduled employments
in mines. lt is impossible to uphold the view of the .High Court.
[306 D-H, 306 A-E]                                                            H


      IJunlpalr Lal a • .,,,•kkar   v. State of Gujarat [1980] (4) sec
329 not applicable. ·
     304                SUPREME COURT REPORTS       [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.


A          3. Notification8 fixing minimum ages should not be lightly
     interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution except on
     the most substantial grounds. {307 G]

              CIVIL APPELLA.TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No •. 589 of
     1972.
ll
           From the Judgment and Order datd 8. 7.1971 of the Andhra
     Pradesh High Court in w.p, No. 3980 of 1969.

                                        AND

                         Civil Appeals Nos 541-546 of 1973
c
        From the Judgment. and Order dated 23.8.1971 of the Andhra
     Pradesh High Court in w.p, Nos. 1526,167.4,3198,3199,3200 & 3210
     of 1970.

           G. Das, P.P, Singh, R.N.Poddar, for the Appellants in C.A.
     No. 589(N) of 1978.
D                                             ,,.
           Respondent No. 1. in person. (not present) in C.A. No;
     589(N) of 1972.

           R.N. Poddar and Mrs. Indira Sawhney for the Appellants in
     C.A. Nos. 541-546 of 1972.
E
           Dr. Anand Prakash, Naunit Lal, Kailash Vasdev and .Mrs.
     Vinod Arya for the Respondents in C.A. Nos. 541-546 of 1972.

              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          G
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         H
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.