STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER versus HART RAM NATHWANI & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 641 · Decided: 03-09-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
' • 
B 
c 
I 
' 
D 
E 
F 
')( 
·-
G 
~ 
~ 
H 
€41 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER 
V, 
HART RAM NATHWANI & ORS. 
September 3, 1975 
[A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P. ]{, GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
1'.<ii11in1.u111 Wages Act (11 of 1948) ss. 5(C) (e), 7 and 9-Appointment 
of gove·rnnient officers on cornmittees and Advisory Board as independent mem-
bers-Propriety-Advisory Board appointing its own sub .. c:o111mittees-Propriety 
--S. 5{1)(a), scope of. 
~ction 5 ( l ) of the Minimum Wages Act. 1948, provides two types 
of 
procedure for fixing and revising minimun1 Wa$es in respect of any scheduled 
employment. 
Section 7 provides for the· appointment of an Advisory Board. 
If the procedure provided in s.5(1)(a) is followed consultation 
with 
the 
Advisory Board is not re.quired while it is mandatory in case· the procedure 
in cl. (b) is followed. 
Under cl. (a), the Government can appoint as many 
Committees. or sub-committees as it considers necessary to hold inquiries and 
advise it in respect" of such fixation or revision. Section 9 requires that every 
committee, sub-committee and the Advisory Board shall consist of representa-
tives of the. employtrs and empioJr~es in eQ:ual numbers and independend 
persons, whose number shall not exceed 1/3 of the total number of members. 
One of the independ"ent persons shall be appointed Chairman. [643 G~644 F] 
In the present case. the State Government followed the procedurl! under 
cl. (a) and appointed a committee i'or revising the wages with 
resPect to 
employ1nent' in Mica 1\.1ines which is a scheduled employment undier the Act. 
The committee consisted of five members, two representatives of the employers, 
two of the employees and a Professor oi' Economics of a Government college 
as an independent member.. It submitted its report to the Government. The 
Government. referred the matter to the Advisory Board which consisted of 21 
members, ~ representatives of the employers. 8 of the employees and 5 govern-
ment officers as independent members. The Advisory Board appointed a sub--
\ 
committee 10 go further into matter. In the 
sub~committce were taken same 
persons who were 
not 
members of 
the 
Advisory Board. 
The 
rulJ.... 
commiue·e made its recommendations and the Advisory Board after considering 
those recommendations also submitted its report and the State Government 
accepted it with slight variations and fixed minimum wages by a notification. 
The respondent challenged its validity . and the High Court struck it 
down 
holding that, (i) the constitution of the Wage Committee and. the Advisory 
Board was not valid because the economics professor and the 5 government 
members were not independent members, (ii) the Board had exceeded 
its 
power in appointing a sub-committee, and, (iii) the Board committed an illegality 
in taking into consideration its recommendations while submirting its report to 
the Governn1ent. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : ( 1) It may be that in certain circumstances trersons who are in 
sefvice or the Government may cease to have an independent character if the 
question arises of fixation of minimum wages in a scheduled employment. In 
the easel of fixation of minimum wages in a scheduled employment in '':hich the 
Government is directly interested, whether Government servants can come in 
the category of fndependent members in addition to the Government officers 
who come on the Board or Committee as representatives of the employers is 
a matter which~ has to be considered in an appropriate case. But in the instant 
case, the constitution Qf the 1 Wage c·ommittee or the Advisory Board was not 
bad, as Government was not an employer in. the 11ica Min'es in respect 
of 
which minimum. wages were fixed. [646 A-El 
The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Naraycina 
Velur Beedi 
Manufacturing 
Factory and o.thers [1973] 1 Labour Law Journal. 476, followed. 
642 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 1 S.C.R. 
(2) The Advisory Board can device its o'.vn procedure anJ collect infer~ 
A 
rn::i.tion by nppcii·1~1nent of sub-co1nmittec-s cons·i'lting 
only 
of 
some 
of 
its 
members. 
But the Advisory Board has no pov.'er to appoint a rival 
snb-
comm,ittee to the one appointed by the Gov~rnn1..::nt and take in such sub-
committee, pep;ons who are not men1bers of the Board as was' done in this 
case. 
Therefore. the Advisory Board committed :in irregularity in appointing 
the sub-committee and taking into consideration its report. [646 E-G] 
(3) But 

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