LexMINISTRY OF LABOUR & REHABILITATION & ANOTHER. versus TIFFINS BARYTES ASBESTOS & PAINTS LTD. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
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. G H Allowing the appeal of the Union of India, 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 Government employees become 'interested persons' contemplated by MINISTRY OF LABOUR v. TIFFIN' S BARYTES 303 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 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 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. '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 appointed should be engaged for prof it in the particular employ- ment. lt is enough if 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 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 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 wi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.