- (1.) On February 18, 1969, the State Government issued a notification under Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act fixing the wages of various kinds of employees of the Bidi industry. Clause (b) of the said notification provided: "(b) No deduction shall be made by the employer on account of supply of raw materials all of which have to be supplied by him free of costs to the bidi maker."
(2.) The appellant, who is a bidi manufacturer, filed a writ petition to challenge the validity of this clause. A learned Single Judge has upheld the validity of the first part of clause (b), that is, 'no deduction shall be made by the employer on account of supply of raw material's, but held that the second part of clause (b) 'all of which have to be supplied by him free of costs to the bidi maker' was ultra vires Section 3 because it has no relevance to the fixation of minimum wages. On this view the writ petition was partly allowed. The second part of cl. (b), that is, 'all of which have to be supplied by him free of costs to the bidi maker' was quashed. The rest of clause (b) was held valid and operative.
(3.) In regard to the first part of clause (b), the learned Single Judge held that it was protected by Section 12 (1). Sub-section (1) of Section 12 provides: "Where in respect of any scheduled employment, a notification under Section 5 is in force, the employer shall pay to every employee engaged in a scheduled employment under him wages at a rate not less than the minimum rate of wages fixed by such notification for that class of employees in that employment without any deductions except as may be authorised within such time and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed." The learned Judge went on to observe that Section 12 prohibits any deduction except the deductions authorised within such time and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. Since in the present case the appropriate authority had not permitted any deductions in respect of the raw materials such a deduction will not be permissible and Section 12 will not apply. The first part of clause (b) merely reiterates the language of Section 12 and does not do anything more and accordingly it is valid. This view has been challenged by the manufacturer in the present appeal. The State Government has also preferred Special Appeal No. 820 of 1971, holding second part of clause (b) to be invalid.;