Grover, J. - (1.) The sole question which has to be decided in these appeals by certificate from a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is the meaning of the word "independent" in Section 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, hereinafter called the "Act".
(2.) The Act was enacted to provide for fixing the minimum rates of wages in certain employments. Section 2 gives the definitions of various expressions. Clauses (a), (h) and (i) give the meaning of the words "employer", "wages" and "employee" respectively. Section 3 provides for fixing of the minimum rates of wages by the appropriate government and their review at certain intervals. Section 5 gives the procedure for fixing and revising minimum wages. Section 5 reads:- S. 5 (1). "In fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled employment for the first time under this Act or in revising minimum rates of wages so fixed, the appropriate government shall either - (a) appoint as many committees and sub-committees as it considers necessary to hold enquiries and advise it in respect of such fixation or revision, as the case may be, or (b) by notification in the Official Gazette, publish its proposals for the information of persons likely to be affected thereby and specify a date not less than two months from the date of the notification, on which the proposals will be taken into consideration. (2) After considering the advice of the committee or committees appointed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) or as the case may be, all representations received by it before the date specified in the notification under clause (b); of that sub-section, the appropriate government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix, or, as the case may be, revise the minimum rates of wages in respect of each scheduled employment, and unless such notification otherwise provides, it shall come into force on the expiry of three months from the date of its issue: Provided..........Section 9 relates to composition of committees etc. and is in these terms: S. 9. "Each of the committees, sub-committees and the Advisory Board shall consist of persons to be nominated by the appropriate Government representing employers and employees in the scheduled employments, who shall be equal in number, and independent persons not exceeding one-third of its total number of members; one of such independent persons shall be appointed the Chairman by the appropriate Government."
(3.) The Government Order which was challenged related to the revision of minimum wages in the Bidi industry. It was based on the recommendation of a committee consisting of six members, two of whom were Chief Inspector of Factories, Hyderabad, and Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Hyderabad; the former beeing the Chairman. These two officers were to be on the committee from among the category of independent persons mentioned in Section 9. The whole controversy has centered on the question whether the aforesaid two officers could be regarded as independent persons. There are a number of decisions of the High Courts. In majority of them, namely, Jaswant Rai Beri v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 Punj 425; D. M. S. Rao v. State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Ker 115; Bengal Motion Pictures Employees Union, Calcutta v. Kohinoor Pictures Private Ltd., AIR 1964 Cal 519; Ramkrishna Ramnath Nagpur v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1964 Bom 51; Chandrabhava Boarding and Lodging v. State of Mysore, AIR 1968 Mys 156 and P. Gangadharan Pillai v. State of Kerala, AIR 1968 Ker 218, it has been held that the mere fact that a person happens to be a government servant or that he is an officer, he does not cease to be an independent person within the meaning of Section 9. The only two decisions in which a contrary view has been taken are Narottamdas Harjivandas v. P. V. Gowarikar, AIR 1961 Madh Pra 182 and Kohinoor Pictures (Private) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal (1961) 2 Lab LJ 741 (Cal); the latter is a judgment of the learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court. It may be mentioned that in the judgment under appeal the Andhra Pradesh High Court has also taken the same view as the Madhya Pradesh Court.;