LexM/S. BHIKUSA YAMASA KAHATRIYA versus SANGAMNER AKOLA TALUKA BIDI KAMGAR UNION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962 Shanti Prasad Jain v. Dir~c:or oj' Enforce~ ment, Foreign Exchange Regulation W1tnchoo, J. 1961 Oc!t11Jtr, lfJ. 524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. Lastly, it is urged that the penalty imposed in this case is too heavy. This matter has been consider- ed by the Appellate Board and we see no reason to differ from the Board on this question. We may only add that the first appellant who is the Chairman of the Sahu Jain Limited is a person of responsibility and position, and it is not expected tha.t such a person would contravene the provisions of the Act. The appeal is hereby dismissed with costs. A fl peal di~mia!td. M/s. BHIKUSA YAMASA KAHATRIYA v. SANGAMNER AK.OLA TALUKA BIDI KAMGAR UNION (B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANoHoo, K. C. DAS GUPTA and J.C. SHAH, .lJ.) Minimum W!UJM-StaMe dek(Jati11Q '[l'7'h.r t,o Gov.rnMtnt f,o fix UJ04M-lf cowfer• arbitrary a.W, uncontrolkd pmcer8- Notijfr.atiort .fizillflJ minimum W!UJe8-Valiaity of-Notifeation iaud Apri.l 19, 1965, of Got!.rnm.,d of Bombay-Mintn&um Wag"1 Aot, 1948(XI of 1948), •.3(3}(w). Section 3(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, authori""8 the appropriate Government to fix rates of minimum Wligl'S payable to employees in the scheduled employments. Section 3(3)(iv) authorises the government, in fixing or revising mini- mum wages, to fix different minimum rates for difl"crent localities. By Notification dated April 19, 1955, the Govern- ment of Bombay revised the minimum rates of W"!,'CS for workers employed in the bidi manufactories and fixed for localities of Sangamner and. ~kola.~ plac~ .within seven miles of their respective Mun1c1pal bm1ts, a m1h1mum rate of Rs. 2/2/· for I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 525 making !000 bidis; The appellant contended that s. 3(3) (iv) violated Arts. 14 ancl 19(l)(f) of the Comtitution as it conferred uncontrolled powers on the government enabling it to discri- minate belween employers of different localities which also affected their business, that the notification also violated Art. 14 and that the notification was not validly made as the Advisory Board had no representatives of the employers on it. Htld, thats. 3(3)(iv) of the Act was valid and that the notificatiOn was issued after compliance with the statutory pro.visions. Section 3(3)(iv) docs not delegate any arbitrary or un- controlled power to the Government. Having regard to the diversity of conditions prevailing and the number of industries covered by the Act, the Legislature could not fix uniform rates fur all the industries and for all the localities. Working out of the detailed provisions relating to minimum rates had from the very nature of the legislation to be delegated to some authority. By entrusting to the State Government power to fix minimum wages for any locality or localities the le_gislature has not stripped itself ,,f its essential legislative power but has merely entrusted an incidental function to it. The policy and the principJes for guidance in the exercise of the power are inherent in the purpoS<' and object of the Act, and in the machinery erected for assistin~ the Government in rnaking equitable adjustment of the conflicting claims of labour and employers. If a statute docs not make a classification itself but leaves it to a responsible hody to make it and sets out the policy or prir.ciples for its guidance, the statute cannot be struck down as infrin!?ing Art. 14. Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Sauraahtra, (1952] S.C.R. 435, relied on. The notification was promulgated after making a full enquiry under the Act. The fixation of rates of wages and the revision thereof was clone after considering the reports of the committees and sub-committees appointed in that behalf and of the Advisory Committees and Board, and after g;ivin~ full consideration tn the representations made by the employers likely to be affected thereby. The fact that there was no representative of the emplovers in the Advisory Board did not affect the validitv of the l'\otification as there was no such statutory requirei'nent. Besides the function of the n;iard is merely to co-ordinate the wor~ of the Committees and sub- committees and to advise Government generally in the matter 1'62 M/s. Bhikusa ramasa Kahatriyu v. S(Jllgamner Jk11fo Taluka Bitii Kamga1 Union 1962 Al /s. Bhikusa ramasa f(ahatr~ya v. Sa11gamner Akolt1 'J '1/uka Bidi Kamgar Un inn Shah, J. 526
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.