U. UNICHOYI AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 946 · Decided: 14-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

Gobald Motor 
Service Ltd. 
v. 
Veluswami 
Subba Rao ]. 
I96I 
April z4. 
946 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
Under s. 2 both the courts awarded damages for the 
loss to the estate in a sum of Rs. 5,000. That figure 
represents the dama.ges for the mental agony, suffer-
ing and loss of expectation of life. There was no 
duplication in awarding damages under both the 
heads. No material has been placed before us to en-
able us to take a different view in regard to the 
amount of compensation under s. 2 of the Act. 
The judgment of the High Court is correct and the . 
appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
U. UNICHOYI AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE STATE OF KERALA 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, 
K. N. WANOHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) 
Minimum Wages-Notification fixing wage structure-If ultra 
vires-Validity of enactment-Capacity of employer to pay, if 
relevant consideration-Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (XI of 1948), 
ss. 5, 9· 
The petitioners, representing certain tile factories, challeng-
ed the validity of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as also the 
notification issued by the Kerala Government prescribing mini-
mum rates of wages in respect of employment in the tile indus-
try on the report of a committee constituted under the Act and 
consisting of the representatives both of the employers and 
employees who agreed with its recommendations. The case of 
the petitioners was that the notification had in effect fixed not 
minimum wages but fair wages and since neither the committee 
-nor the Government in fixing them had considered the capacity 
ol the employers to pay, the notification was void. 
Held, that in view of the decisions of this Court the con-
stitutional validity of the Act could no longer be in doubt and 
any hardship that may be caused to employers by the wages 
fixed under the Act or their incapacity to pay the same are 
irrelevant consid~rations in fixing such v.·ages. 
, •I
•
I
1
.. 
l S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
947 
The Edward Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Ajmer, [1955] I 
S.C.R. 735, Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. v. State of Ajmer, [r955] l 
S.C.R. 752 and M/s. Crown Aluminium Works v. Their Workmen, 
[1958] $.C.R. 651, referred to. 
While, therefore, in fixing the minimum wage nothing can 
be added to its components that may take it near the lower level 
of the fair wage, the minimum wage must ensure not only the 
sustenance of the employee and his family but also preserve 
his efficiency as a worker and that is what is contemplated by 
the Act. It is an error to think that the minimum wage is just 
what a worker requires to cover his physical needs and to keep 
himself aboye starvation. 
1 
There can be no analogy between the Minimum Wages Act 
which prescribes the economic and industrial minimum and a 
statute which prescribes its own minimum that approximates 
more or less to the fair wage standard and so makes it necessary 
to consider the employer's capacity to pay. 
Express Newspapers (P.) Ltd. v. The Union of India, [1959] 
S.C. R. 12, explained and distinguished. 
· 
This Court would ordinarily refuse to consider the merits of 
the wage structure set up by the Notification on the recommen-
dations of the committee, agreed to by the representatives of the 
employers and the employees. The fact that wages paid in other 
industries in the State or in other States in comparable con-
cerns are lower does not necessarily shO\\' that the rates pre~ 
scribed by the Notification are unduly high. 
A notification under the Act must apply to all the factories 
in the State and the State cannot permit or be associated with a 
departure from it for that would amount to a contravention of 
ss. 22 and 25 of the Act. If a departure is considered neces-
sary, the proper course would be to withdraw the notification 
in respect of the area concerned or to reconsider and modify it 
if necessa.ry. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 102 of 1958. 
·1 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India 
for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 
M. K. Nambiar, and S. N. Andley, for the peti-
tioners. 
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, 
M. P. Balagangadhar Menon and Sardar Bahadur, for 
the respondents. 
1961. 
April 14. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
1961 
U. Unichoyi 
v. 
Slate of f{erala 
) 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-The Government of Kerala Gajendratadkar J. 
appointed a Committee in exercise of its powers 
/ 
948 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
z9

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