BHAVANI SANKAR MICA MINERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BHAVANI SANKAR MICA MINES
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)Does Employment in 'Mica forks' specified at Entry 10 in the seedule Part I Minimum Wages Act, 1048, (to be called the Act) include vithin it 'Employment in Mica Mines' N. K. Jain V/s. Labour Commr, 1957 AIR(Raj) 35 says it does. Against this Chatturam Darsanram V/s. Union of India,1980 2 LabLJ 465 has held that Mica Works do not include Mica Mines, vhich of th'ss is the correct view The nswer to this question will determine the validity and constitutionality of the impugned notification dated 2-9-1982 issued in exercise of the powers conferd by sub-sec. (1) of S. 3 read with -1. (iii) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 4 and sub"C (2) of S- 5 of the Act, by which the Qntral Government revised the minimum rates of wages...hereto payable to categories of employees employed in emloyments in Mica Mines. We may note that the Central Government had delegated its power by virtue of Art. 258 of the Constitution to State of Rajasthan to fix minimum wages for workers employed in Mica Mines. The notification dated 29th Mar., 1952, was upheld in N. K. Jain s, 1957 AIR(Raj) 35.
(2.)It may be mentioned that earlier the Central Government had issued a notification dated 28th May, 1976 revising the minimum wages of workmen employed in Mica Mines. It was this notification which had been quashed in Chatturam s,1980 2 LabLJ 465.
(3.)The petitioner carried the Mica Mining business in State of Andhra Pradesh. He claims that impugned notification dated 2-9-82 is unconstitutional and ultra vires. All these groups of writ petitions will be disposed of by a common judgment because similar point is involved in all these petitions.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.