LexBIDI, BIDI LEAVES' AND TOBACCO MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
381
department.
We are therefore of opinion that
the workmen are entitled to an additional bonus
for half a month for this year.
We therefore partly allow the appeal and
reduce the additional bonus from one month to
half a month. In the circumstances we order the
parties to bear their own cost~.
Appeal allowed.
BIDI, BIDI LEAVES' AND TOBACCO
MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION
v.
THE STATE OF BOMBAY
(P. B.
GAJENDRAGADKAR,
A. K.
SARKAR,
K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAs GUPTA and
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.)
Minimum
Wages-Bidi
industry-Nolificatlon fixing
minimum wages, prescribi11g method for di.•carding of 'Chhat'
bidis and payment therefore-If ultra vii-es-Doctrine of
implied powers-Notification No. MIV A 1557 J dated June 11,
1948-Minimurn Wages Act, J.948(11 of 1948), ss.
2(k)
3, 5, 20 and 21.
By s. 3 of the Minimum W;iges Act, 1948, the appro-
priate Government is authorised to fix minimum rates of
wages for employees in the Scheduled employments and
•· 5 lays down the procedure for fixing and revising such
minimum wages. The State Government published a noti-
fication dated June 11, 1958, fixing minimum rates of wages
in respect of employments in bidi making in the Vidarhha
region. Clauses I and 2 of the notification prescribed the
minimum rates district wise and provided for higher rates
for making bidis known as •Hatl)akhun' in all the districts.
Clauses 3 to 7 dealt with disputes between the employers
and the employees as to how bad bidis were to be discarded
and in what proportion and as to the payment for such dis-
carded bidis. The appellant contended that els. 3 to 7 of
the notification were 'ltltra virea:
llel.d, that els. 3 to 7 of the Notification were outside the
purview of the p~wers conferred upon the State Government
1961
illysort Kir/oakar
Ltd,
••
lt"orkers of lhe
1~1.Jsore
Kirloskar Ltd.
1961
382 SUPR,EME CO"(fflT RE.PORTS [1962lSUPP.
1961
Ridi Bidi Leaves and
Tob
0acco Merchants'
Association
by s. 5
of. the Act and were ultra vires.
TI.e pro-
~i~~ns of ~~C Act empo~ered the Gov:i-n~e?~ only to fi"
mm1mum Wages; they did not
authorise it to make rules
for resolving the disputes regarding the rejection of bad
bidis an,d regarding the payments to be made for the rejected
v.
Thi State of Bomhrry· bi dis.
'
·
The Act empowered the Government to fix the re.
muneration pavable to an employee if the other terms.of
the c;ontracl were.observed; it did not authorise the Govern-
ment to vary the other terms. Under the contract the emp-
loyer was entitled to decide which bidis to discard, and to
retain such
bidi~ and to pay onlv for such bidis as were
accepted by him.
Clauses 3 to 7 of the notification purported
to modifv these tert{ls in m~terial particµlars and this was
not within tJie po_wer conferred by 't]ie Act upon the 'Govrrn-
Il)ent. Nor could these'clauses• be justified. on the basis of
implied powers. The doctrine of implied powers could only
b~ invoked wh~n it was found that a duty was imposed or
a power conferred qq an authqritv by a statute and it was
furtl1cr found 'that the duty could not be discharged or the
p0wci:,s ,could n?t be, excrcisef\ ~t ,all unless some auxiliary
or inCjidrontal po\\•er was assumed· to exist.
~ven 'if cIS. J
and 2 would l'i'ecome 'ineffective without els. 3 fo 7 being
there that viould not be a proper basis for invoking the
doc.trJnc of implied power;c::.
The definition of !wages' in
•· 2(h) of the Act postulated, the binding character of the
othP.1" tenTJS of the contract and brought Within the-pur"iew
of the Act only th~ term.relating to wages. By impliqltio!l
the very ha~ic concept ot wae-es could not be ignored. By
ss: 20 and 21 the Act makes specific provision for the settle-
ment of claims in re12;ard to payment of minimum wages
;:i.nd
a~ !llnch no :po,vers could be implied in the Governmf"nt
to set up a separa1c machinery to settle such cjisputr.s.
Fur.
ther, no power could be. implied to make els. I and ·7 of the
notification effective : such power could only be implied if
it \vas neces5ary to make:is. 5 of the Act itself effective.
Michael Fent-On and JameA
Fraser v. Jhon Sleplien
Hom:eton, (1957-59) 117 R.. R. 21, referred to.
r
C:rvn. APPELLATE .'T 1j-RISDIOTION ': Civil Appeals
Nos. 415-Al8 of 1960.
Appeals from the judgments. and orders
da.te9- September 23, 1958,' of tlie Bombay High
Court in Specfal Civil Applications Nos. 205 and
21Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.