RAMBHAU SAKHARAM NAGRE Vs. D G TATKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are applications under Art. 227 of the Constitution wherein the petitioners have prayed for the issue of an appropriate writ to set aside the order of 6th November 1957 of the Authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act. By the said order the Authority held that the workers in certain bidi manufacturing concerns were not entitled to be paid at the revised rate of Rs. 2-2-0 per thousand bidis from 1st September 1956 to 15th December 1956. These applications raise common questions, and the questions are: 1. Is the issue of a notification by the State Government under section 26, sub-section (2) of the Minimum Wages Act a quasi-judicial act or an administrative act:? 2. Even if it be an administrative act, could it be challenged as an arbitrary act, if only one party is heard before the act and no opportunity to be heard is given to the other side?

(2.) THESE questions arise upon the following facts. The petitioner in application No. 68 of 1958 is the President of the Sangamner Akola Bidi Kamgar Union. Petitioner No. 1 in application No. 614 of 1958 is a legal practitioner at Sangamner and petitioner No. 2 is an official of the Sangamner Akola Bidi Mazdoor Sabha. The applicants in application No. 614 of 1958 have been authorised in writing to act on behalf of the bidi workers. These petitioners (the applicants in applications Nos. 68 and 614 of 1958) filed applications before the Authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, contending that they were paid less wages than what they were entitled to under the notification dated the 19th April 1955 issued by the State Government flatter S. 26, sub-section (2) of the Act. The petitioners' case is that the Government of the State of Bombay, by a notification issued by them on the 19th April 1955, fixed wages for workers in bidi manufacturing concerns in certain areas at the rate of Rs. 2-2-0 per thousand bidis. By the various notifications, including the notifications dated 80th June 1955 and 28th June 1956, the bidi manufacturers in certain areas were exempted from the application of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. This exemption was extended from time to time till 31st December 1956. The exemption however was withdrawn or cancelled by the Government by a notification dated 22nd August 1956. The cancellation of the exemption was to be effective from 1st September 1956. The petitioners' contention is that Consequent upon the withdrawal of the exemption, they became entitled to the wages at the rate of Rs. 2-2-0 per thousand bidis from 1st September 1956 to 31st December 1956. In these applications we are concerned only with the period from 1st September 1956 to 31st December 1956. The petitioners contend that notwithstanding this position, the owners of the bidi manufacturing concerns, who are respondents in these applications, paid wages' to them at the rate of Rs. 2/- only per thousand bidis so far as the bidi industry at Sangamner was concerned and at the rate of Rs. 1-15-0 only per thousand bidis so far as the bidi industry in the villages within seven miles of Sangamner and Akola was concerned. When this happened, the workers claimed difference between the wages which were due to them under the notification dated 19th April 1955 and the wages that were actually paid to them by the employers and they made applications under S. 20 of the Act before the Authority. The owners of the bidi manufacturing concerns submitted a written statement, wherein they raised contentions regarding the constitutionality of section 3, sub-section (3), clause (a), sub-clause (iv) of the Act and also the constitutionality of the notifications dated 19th April 1955 and 22nd August 1956. The Authority negatived these contentions of the employers, but he substantially upheld one contention of theirs, viz. , that the notification issued by the Government of the State of Bombay on the 22nd August 1956 withdrawing the exemption was issued "arbitrarily, dishonestly and in a manner which was contrary to the principles of natural justice". Consistently with this view which the Authority took on the question of the validity of the notification, dated 22nd August 1956, he held that the workers would not be entitled to wages in accordance with the notification dated 19th April 1955 during the period from 1st September 1956 to 31st December 1956 since the exemption from the application of the Act would extend to 31st December 1956. It is against this finding of the Authority that the present applications have been filed by the petitioners.

(3.) NOW, the questions regarding the constitutionality of section 3, sub-section (3), clause (a), sub-clause (iv) of the Act and also about the constitutionality of the notification issued by the State of Bombay on the 19th April 1955 have been decided by us in Special Civil Application No. 67 of 1958. So far as the present petitions are concerned, the question for consideration is about the validity of the notification issued by the Government of Bombay on the 22nd August 1956 withdrawing the exemption which had been previously granted by the State Government by notifications dated 30th June 1955 and 28th June 1956. It is the contention of the petitioners that the withdrawal of exemption from the application of the Act by a notification of the State Government under sub-section (2) of section 26 was an administrative act of the Government, that it was not a judicial or a quasi-judicial act, and that, therefore, the rules of natural justice would not be attracted in this case and it was not necessary for the State Government to bear the parties, consider their representations, record their evidence etc. , before issuing the notification. On the other hand, the contention of the owners of the bidi manufacturing concerns is that the granting of exemption from the application of the Act and the withdrawal of the said exemption were quasi-judicial acts and, therefore, it was obligatory on the State Government to follow the rules of natural justice before issuing notifications in that connection under sub-section (2) of S. 26. Thus, a question arises whether the granting of an exemption from the application of the Act by a notification issued by the appropriate Government under section. 26, sub-section (2) of the Act and the subsequent withdrawal of the said exemption by a notification are quasi-judicial acts or administrative acts. It may be noted, and this is important, that in these applications we are not called upon to decide whether the initial fixing of minimum rates of wages and revision of those rates are quasi-judicial acts or administrative acts. The question is this: the minimum rates of wages having already been fixed under the Act, whether the grant of exemption from the application of the Act and the withdrawal of that exemption are quasi-judicial acts or administrative acts.