- (1.)THIS Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by four Bidi Manufacturing Factories in Marathwada under these circumstances: In 1955, after the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, (which shall hereafter be referred to as "the Act") was made applicable to bidi factories in Hyderabad, the Government of the State of Hyderabad issued a notification fixing the minimum rates of wages for bidi-workers. This notification, dated 4th March 1955, came into force on 30th March 1955 in four areas of the Hyderabad State. On 1st November 1956, five districts of Marathwada merged with the Bombay State and on 18th November 1957, the Deputy commissioner of Labour informed all the employers of the tobacco manufactories in the areas of Marathwada that the Government of Bombay was considering the revision of minimum rates of wages fixed under the Act and that Mr. Dhuttia, Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Administration), Bombay, would conduct an inquiry in respect of the existing conditions of services obtaining in the industry including its financial capacity. It seems that Mr. Dhutia, after making an inquiry, submitted his report to the Labour and Social Welfare Department of the State of Bombay, which issued a notification on 10th September 1958 publishing the Government's proposals for revising minimum rates of wages of bid-workers fixed by the State of Hyderabad in March 1955. The Marathwada Bidi Manufacturers Association, being dissatisfied with the recommendations made by Mr. Dhutia as well as the proposals contained in the draft notification, made representations to the Government of Bombay and it appears that a representation was also sent to the Advisory Board constituted under the provisions of the Act. These representations were sent on 15th November 1958. It is not disputed that the Bidi Manufacturers Association received an intimation from the Minimum Wage Advisory Board Bombay dated 15th January 1959, stating that the Advisory Board had appointed a Committee to consider the proposed revision of rates of wages in respect of employment in bidi-making factories in Marathwada and that the Committee would be visiting Nanded on 19th January 1959 and Aurangabad on 20th January 1959 for the purpose of recording evidence of the employers, employees, their organisations, etc. The Committee consisted of seven persons, but here is no dispute that only four of them, including Mr. P. S. Bakhale, the Chairman of the Advisory Board visited Aurangabad on 21st January 1959. It would seem from the petition that, on behalf of the bidi-manufacturers of Maarathwada, an objection was raised to the constitution of the committee, and the representatives of the Association thereafter do not appear to have co-operated with that Committee. The final notification containing the revised rates was published on 8th July 1959 and that was to come into force on or after 1st August 1959. The draft notification issued by the Government on 10th September 1958 had slightly increased the rates of minimum wages fixed by the State of Hyderabad in March 1955. The final notification issued by the Government of Bombay on 8th July 1959 abolished the distinction between workers in factory and workers who made bidis at their own homes and who are known as Gharkhata workers, which prevailed under the notification issued by the Government of Hyderabad, and fixed a common minimum wage for both the kinds of workers. Secondly, the final notification also increased the rates of minimum wages beyond the revised rates proposed in the draft notification issued in September 1958. The petitioners-bidi-manufacturing factories, being aggrieved by the revised rates fixed in the final notification, have filed the present petition challenging the validity of the aforesaid final notification issued by the State of Bombay on several grounds.
(2.)MR. Pendse, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has raised the following contentions in support of the petition. In the first instance, he contends that the Government have not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 5 of the Act in issuing the final notification. It is urged that since the draft notification had already proposed an increase in the rates of minimum wages payable to bidi-workers, it is the representation of the manufacturers alone that could be considered by the Government; and if Government after they took the advice of the Advisory Board, contemplated a further rise in the rates of minimum wages they should have given another opportunity to the employers to make further representations against their fresh proposals. Mr. Pendse then contends that under the Act it is the function of the Advisory Board to tender its advice to the Government; but in the present case the Advisory Board appears to have appointed a small sub-committee for the purpose of making inquiries on the spot and thereby it had delegated its function to this committee and that, according to him, is not contemplated by the Act. It is also urged that assuming that the Advisory Board could collect information and data by appointing a sub-committee, that sub-committee should also have been under Section 9 of the Act and that, having been not done, the advice which was tendered by the Advisory Board on the report of the sub-committee would be vitiated and, therefore, the final notification would be invalid. The last contention of Mr. Pendse is that the final notification issued by the Government is void because it has raised the rates of minimum wages to such an extent that it would be impossible for the petitioners to carry o their bidi-manufacturing business and therefore, that would be in contravention of their fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. It is also contended that under Section 12 of the Act it is obligatory on the employer to pay the minimum rate of wages fixed under the Act; and if that is not paid, the employer would be exposed to the penalties for offences under Section 22 of the Act. On the other hand, Mr. Pendse contends, no such obligation is cast on the workers and he points out that in the present case the bidi-workers have informed the petitioners that they are willing to settle the wages by mutual negotiations in order to avoid the closure of the factories as threatened by the bidi-manufacturers. Mr. Pendse argues that whereas the workers can show their willingness to work on lesser rates of wages than the minimum fixed and can actually receive less wages, they would not be exposed to the penalties which an employer would have to suffer under the provisions of Section 22 of the Act. On this ground, Mr. Pendse contends that the relevant provisions of the Act must be struck down on the ground that they are discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The argument appears to be that in case the Court declares that Sections 12 and 22 of the Act are bad as they violate the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution, it would be open to the petitioners to arrive at an amicable settlement with the workers in the bidi-factories, so that it would not be necessary for the employers to close down the bidi factories, and that would be beneficial both to the petitioners as well as the workers. These, in short, are the arguments addressed to us in support of the petition.
(3.)IT has to be mentioned that in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State, an objection has been raised that the present petition has been filed after considerable delay. But the learned Advocate General informed us that he would not be pressing that objection as the State was desirous of having a decision of this petition on merits.