K.JAYACHANDRA REDDY - (1.) SOME of the employees unions, who figure as respondents herein; filed a batch of writ petitions challenging the validity of a Notification dated 9-10-92 issued by the Industries, Energy and Labour Department of the State Government of Maharashtra exercising the powers conferred by Section 13 of The Maharashtra Workmen's Minimum House Rent Allowance Act, 1983 ('Act' for short). A Division Bench of the High Court declared the impugned Notification as invalid, unenforceable and accordingly quashed the same and also directed the employers, who figured as respondents before the High Court, to refund the amount recovered from the workmen on the basis of the impugned Notification. M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd., Batliboi and Co. and others ('Companies' for short) have filed these two S.L.Ps. questioning the judgment of the High Court. These S.L.Ps. are being disposed of at the admission stage itself. SOME other Employees' Unions have filed I. A. Nos. 3-4-5-6 for being impleaded as interveners.
(2.) WITH a view to provide for payment of minimum house-rent allowance to workmen employed in industries in Maharashtra and to provide for matters connected therewith, the Act was enacted in the year 1983 which received the assent of the President on 5-10-88, and was published in the Official Gazette on 17-10-88. The Act extends to the State of Maharashtra and as notified by the State Government, it was brought into force with effect from 1/01/1991. This Act is made applicable Under S. I to every factory or establishment in an industry. For the purpose of the questions to be resolved, it may not be necessary to refer to all the Sections. Section 2(i) defines workmen as under : "2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- (i) "workman" means a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947) or an employee as defined in the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Bom. XI of 1947) as the case may require. Section 2(i) gives the same meaning to the expression workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act or an employee as defined in the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. Section 4(l) reads thus : "4. Responsibility for payment of house-rent allowance : ( 1) Every employer shall pay to every workman employed by him a house-rent allowance which shall not be less than five per cent. of the wages payable to the workman for his services during a month, or twenty rupees, whichever is higher." Section 13 empowers the State Government to grant exemption in certain special cases from the application of the Act. Section 13 reads as follows : " 13. Power to exempt in special cases-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the State Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, and subject to such conditions and restrictions, if any, and for such period or periods, as may be specified in the order, direct that the provisions of this Act shall not apply to any specified factory or establishment or to any specified class of factories or establishments in any industry, if it is satisfied that it is just and proper to do so in the public interest or for any special reasons having regard to the more favourable conditions of employment in such factory or factories or establishment or establishments or to the financial position and other relevant circumstances of such factory or factories or establishments, as the case may be. (2) Any order made under this section may be made so as to be retrospective to any date not earlier than the date on which the Act became applicable to that factory or factories or establishment or establishments, as the case may be." Purporting to exercise powers under this Section, the impugned Notification was issued by the State Goverment which reads thus : "No. BRA 3191/992/LAB/ Per Cent -A -- In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of Section 13 of the Maharashtra Workmen's Minimum House-Rent Allowance Act, 1988 (Mah. XXIII of 1988), the Government of Maharashtra, being satisfied that it is just and proper to do so in the public interest, hereby directs that, with effect from 1/01/1991 the provisions of said Act, shall not apply to the factories and establishments in relation to their workmen drawing wages as on 1/01/1991 or thereafter at the rates exceeding the limits mentioned in Column (4) with reference to the Zones and Areas mentioned in columns (2) and (3), respectively, of the Schedule below, subject to the condition that where the wages of' the workmen exceed the limits of wages in the respective Zones, the House Rent Allowances payable to such workmen shall be calculated as if their wages were as per the limits in column (4) of the Schedule below : JUDGEMENT_1_SUPP1_1994Html1.htm The employees unions challenged this Notification on the ground that (i) it is an excess of power under S. 13(2), ii) it is against the basic provisions of the Act, (iii) it is arbitrary and (iv) it is vitiated by non-application of mind. An additional challenge is to the retrospectivity from 1- 1-1991 on the ground of unreasonableness. The High Court held that the Act contemplates payment of house-rent allowance to all workmen and there is no scope to reduce the minimum rate of house rent in respect of any class of workmen or to differentiate between classes or categories of workmen of a unit and in the Notification, rates of house-rent allowance have been reduced even below statutory minimum by putting a ceiling depending upon the geographical areas in which the factories or establishments are situated and it is beyond the power expressly contained in S. 13 and that in other respects also, the impugned Notification is not in accordance with the conditions laid down in Section 13.
(3.) SHRI Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that S. 13(1) of the Act empowers the Government to exempt any specific factory or establishment, subject to such conditions and restrictions, if any, and for such period or periods, as may be specified, if the Government is satisfied that it is just and proper to do so in public interest or for any special reasons mentioned therein and in deciding the question whether the Notification is in accordance with Section 13, the substance of the Notification as a whole should be considered. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the Notification virtually amounts to amendment of the Act particularly S. 4 and is also in total contravention of provisions of S. 13.;