KERALA PRIVATE HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 11 S.C.R. 945 · Decided: 09-11-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017) l 1 S.C.R. 945 
KERALA PRIVATE HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.18368 of2017) 
NOVEMBER09,2017 
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - s.9 - Employees working in the 
Private Hospitals, Dispensaries, Pharmacies, Scanning Centers, 
X-ray Units and other allied institutions - Revision of minimum wages 
- Committee constituted by State under Section 9 - Constitution of 
A 
B 
c 
the Committee challenged by respondent nos. 2 to 4 running their 
private hospitals in the respondent-State contending that proper 
representation was not given in the Committee to the employers' D 
representatives as according to them only employers/owners of 
Hospitals/Organizations could be nominated as Members to 
represent the interest of employers in the Committee but not their 
employees working in such Hospitals/Organizations - Writ petition 
dismissed by High Court - Held: A person nominated to represent 
E 
the interest of his employer, need not necessarily be the employer 
himself- Nomination of an employee to represent employer's interest 
is in accordance with s.9 - No fault is found in such nomination -
More so, when on facts, employer did not object to such nomination 
- Also, employees nominated were well versed in the subject in 
question by virtue of the posts held by them - No flaw or illegality 
in the constitution of the Committee or/and in nominating the 
members by the State - Constitution of the Committee in question is 
in accordance with the requirements u/s.9 and heizce does not call 
for any interference - Tlze Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 -
rr. 3, 4A, 7, 8 and JO. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
F 
G 
HELD: 1.1 Section 9, Minimum Wages Act, 1948 deals with 
constitution of various Committees for due performance of 
several acts specified under the Act. An appropriate Government H 
945 
946 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 11 S.C.R. 
A is empowered to constitute a Committee whose composition 
consists· of members by nomination to represent the employers' 
and employees' interest in equal numbers. The independent 
persons are also the members of the Committee whose number 
should not exceed one third of its total number of the members. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
The Chairman of the Board by the Central Government is 
empowered to appoint one independent person. The Minimum 
Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 prescribes, inter alia, a term of office 
of the members of the Committee and the Advisory Committee 
(Rule 3), Nomination of substitute-members (Rule 4A), eligibility 
for re-nomination of the members of the Committee, Advisory 
Committee and the Board (Rule 7), resignation of the Chairman 
and members of the Committee/Board and filling of the casual 
vacancies (Rule 8) and disqualification (Rule 10). The Rules 
nowhere provide as to who should be nominated as representative 
of employer in the Committee. [Paras 23, 24) [952-F-H; 953-A] 
1.2 A person, who is nominated to represent the interest of 
his employer, need not necessarily be the employer himself. If 
on the other hand, his employee is nominated to represent his 
employer's interest, such nomination is in accordance with the 
requirement of Section 9 of the Act. It is for the reason that such 
nominee once nominated would defend his employer's interest 
and not individual interest as an employee in the Committee. In 
other words, a nominee in such a case does not participate in his 
individual capacity as an employee in the Committee but 
participates as a representative of his employer. A representation, 
by way of nomination, is a well accepted phenomenon. A fortiori, 
an employee while in the employment of his employer, when 
nominated as his employer's representative in the Committee 
then such employee, who is well-versed with the working of his 
organization and the subject, is regarded as a competent 
person(nominee) · to 
represent 
the 
interest 
of his 
G master(employer). No fault can thus be found in such nomination 
when made by the State while constituting the Committee. It is 
more so when it is found, that in the case at hand the employer 
did not object to such nomination made by the State of their 
employee in the Committee. [Paras 26, 27) [953-C-F] 
H 
KERALA PRIVATE HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF 
. 941 
KERALA & ORS. 
1.3 In the case at hand, it is further found that equal A 
representation is given to both- employer and employee (13 
persons each) in the Committee. So

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