CHANDRA BHAVAN BOARDING AND LODGING, BANGALORE versus THE STATE OF MYSORE AND ANR.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 600 · Decided: 29-09-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

600 
CHANDRA BHAV AN BOARDING AND LODGING, 
BANGALORE 
v. 
THE STATE OF MYSORE AND ANR. 
September 29, 1969 
[S. M. SIKRl, G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE, A. N. RAY AND 
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Miniumum Wages Act, 1948 ss. 5(1)-Va/idity of-Power of Govern· 
ment to fix minimum wages either by method ins. 5(l)(a) nr s. 5(1) 
(b) whether unguided-Power of Government to fix minimum wages 
whether resttrictive of trade and business-Whether a quasi-iudicial power 
requiring compliance with rules of natural !~lice-Fixing different rates 
of wages for different industries and zones whether valid-Valuntion of 
food supplied to workmen. 
Section 5(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 provides for 
the 
fixation and revision of minimum wages in the schedllled industries 
by the appropriate Government. Under s. 5 (I) (a) such fixation or revision 
is to be made after enquiry by a committee or committees appointed for 
the purpose. Under s. 5(1)(b) the appropriate Government may by 
notification publish its proposals in this regard and take its decision after 
considering the representations of those affected. 
If the 
Government 
adopts the latter method for revision of wages, it has also before. doing 
so to consult the Advisory Board constituted under the Act. The State 
Government of Mysore after following the method prescribed in s. 5 (I) 
(b) and after consulting the Advisory Board constituted under s., 7 <'f 
the Act by notification in S.O. 1038 
dated !st June, 1967 fixed 
the 
minimum wages for different classes of employees in residenti•l hostels 
and e&ting houses in the State of Mysore. The appellant filed a writ 
petition in the High Court questioning the validity of the notification and 
failing there, appealed to this Court. The notification was also challeng-
ed by a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution. It was urged 
on behalf of the appellant and petitioners that the power given to the 
Government to choose between the methods provided in ss. 5(1) (a) and 
5 (I) (b) was arbitrary and unguided; that the arbitrary power given to 
the Central •nd State Governments to fix minimum wages was violative 
of freedom of trade guaranteed in Art. 19(1) (f) of the Constitution; 
that the State Government had not observed the principles of natural 
justice in exercising its quasi-judicial power of fixing minimum wages; 
and that it was incumbent on Government to appoint a committee under 
s. 5(!)(a). The fixation of different rates of wages for different indus· 
tries and zones in the State was also attacked. It was finally submitted 
that the Yaluation of the food supplied to the workmen 
was 
without 
authority of law and at an unreasonably low figure. 
HELD : Procedural inequality if real and substantial is within the 
vice of Art 14. But if a power is given to an authority to have recourse 
to different procedures under different circumstances, that power cannot 
be considered an arbitrary power. The power under s. 5 (I) is given 
to the State Government and not to any petty official. The State Gov-
ernment can be trusted to exercise that power to further the purposes 
of the Act. [608 H-609 BJ 
Art. 43 of the Constitution as well as the Geneva Conventi911 
of 
1928· enjoin the State to secure to all workers conditions of work en-
suring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
CHANDRA BHAVAN V. MYSORE 
601 
and cultural opportunities. The fixing of the minimum wages is just the 
first step in that direction. The concept of minimum wage .. is likely to 
undergo a chana~ with the gro1'1h of our economy and with the change 
in the standard ox living. It is not a static concept Its concomitants 
must necessarily increase with the progress of the Society. It is absolutely 
impossible for the legislature to undertake the task of fixing minimum · 
wages in rescect of an industry much less in respect of an employment. 
That process must necessarily be left to the Government. [6C9 G-H; 610 
A] 
In respect of s. 5 (I) the legislative policy has been laid down with 
sufficient clearnes·s. The Government is merely charged with the duty of 
implementing that policy. Whether under s. 5(1) (a) or under s. 5(1) (b) 
the procedure is only for gathering the necessary information. 
The Gov-
ernment is not bouJ.ld by the: advice of the committee appointed under 
s, 5 (I)( a), Discretion to select one of the two procedures prescribed 
for collecting the data is

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.