THE EDWARD MILLS CO. LTD., BEAWAR, AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF AJMER AND ANOTHER.

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 735 · Decided: 14-10-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA, VIVIAN BOSE, B. JAGANNADHADAS, T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

, ... 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
_735 
The Australian Constitution indeed has no provision 
like article 19(1) (g) of the Indian 
Constitution and it 
is certainly an arguable point as to whether the rights 
of individuals alone are dealt with in article 19(1) (g) 
of the 
Constitution leaving the freedom of trade and 
commerce, meaning by that expression 'only the free 
passage of persons and goods' within or without a 
State 
to be dealt with under article 301 and the 
following 
articles. 
We have thus indicated only the points that could 
be. raised and the possible 
views that could be taken 
but as we have said already, we do not desire to express 
any final opinion on these points as it is unnecessary 
for purposes of the present case. 
The result is that in 
our opinion the 
appeals should be allowed and the 
judgment of 
the High Court set aside. A writ in the 
nature of mandamus shall issue against the respondents 
in these appeals restraining 
them 
from enforcing the 
provisions of the U. P. State Road Transport Act, 1951, 
against the appellants or the men working under them. 
There will be no order as to costs. 
Appeals allowed. 
THE 
EDWARD 
MILLS 
CO. 
LTD., 
BEAWAR, 
AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE STATE OF AJMER AND ANOTHER. 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., MUKHERJEA, 
V1v1AN BosE, JAGANNADHADAS 
and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.J 
Constitution of India, Art. 372-Words "law in force"-Mean-
ing of-Whether include regulation or order having the force of law 
-An order made under s. 94(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935 
-Whether "law in 
force" and capable of adaptation-Minimum 
Wages Act, 1948 (Act XI of 1948), s. 27-"Appropriate Government" 
-Given power to add to either part of schedule-Any employment in 
respect of which minimum rates of wages should be fixed-Whether 
such power warranted and not unconstitutional and within the limits 
of permissible delegation-Advisory committee-Appointment 
of--
Under s. 5 of the Act-Extension of its term beyond the period already 
expired-Validity-Procedural irregularities-Whether 
vitiate 
the 
final report. 
9-88 S. C. India/59 
1954 
Saghir Ahmad 
v. 
The State of 
U.P. 
and Others. 
Mukhnjea J. 
1954 
October 14 
1954 
&lward MillsCo. 
Ltd. 
v. 
T lu Stai. of 
4imer 
and Anctlur. 
736 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
The words 'law in force' as used in Art. 372 of the Consti-
tution are wide enough to include not merely a legislative enact-
ment but also any regulation or order which has the force of law. 
An order made by the Governor-General under s. 94(3) of the 
Government of India Act, 1935, investing the Chief Commissioner 
with the authority to administer a province is really in the nature 
of a legislative provision which defines the rights and powers of 
the Chief Commissioner in respect of that province. Such an order 
comes within the purview of Art. 372 of the Constitution and being 
a 'law in force' immediately before the 
commencement of the 
Constitution would continue to be inforce under clause (1) of the 
article. Such an order is capable of adaptation to bring it in accord 
with the constitutional provisions and this is precisely what has 
been done by the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950. 
Therefore an 
order made under s. 94(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, 
should be reckoned now as an order made under Art. 239 of the 
Constitution and it was within the competence of the President 
under clause (2) of Art 372 to make the adaptation order. 
Under s. 27 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, power has been 
given to the "appropriate 
Government" to add to either part of 
the schedule any employment in respect of which it is of opinion 
that minimum wages shall be fixed 
by giving notification in a 
particular manner, and thereupon the scheme shall, in its applica-
tion to the State, be deemed lo be amended accordingly. There is 
an element of delegation 
impli~d in the provisions of s. 27 of the 
Act, for the Legislature, in a sense, authorises another body speci-
fied by it, to do something which it might do itself. 
But such 
delegation, if it can be so called at all, is not unwarranted and 
unconstitutional and it does not 
exceed the limits of permissible 
delegation. 
The legislative policy is apparent on the face of the present 
enactment. 
What it aims at is the statutory fixation of minimum 
wages with a view to obviate the chances of exploitation of labour. 
It is to carry out effectively the puq.x>ses of the enactment that 
power has been given t

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