- (1.) The petitioners in these writ petitions have cinema houses in the city of Allahabad. On 27th Aug., 1973 an application was made by one J. S. P. Pandey, an Inspector appointed under the Minimum Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Authority appointed under the Act in each of these two cases. The application which was made in the case pertaining to M/s. Ajanta Talkies stated that a sum of Rs. 1,510.50 being the minimum wages of the workmen of the said talkies had not been paid to the workmen concerned, a prayer was made that a direction may be issued under S. 20 (3) of the Act for payment of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,510.50 along with 10 times penalty. The application which was made in the other case, viz., in respect of the cinema houses managed by M/s. Niranjan Lal Bhargava Trust, stated that the amount payable was Rs. 2,430.00. The amount of 10 times penalty claimed to be payable to the workmen was stated to be Rs. 24,300/-. Two preliminary objections were raised by the petitioners before the authority concerned viz. the Deputy Labour Commissioner, respondent No. 1, (1) that Shri J. S. P. Pandey had not been validly appointed as Inspector under the Minimum Wages Act and consequently no action could be taken on the application made by him in each of the two cases, and (2) that under an award published in the Gazette dated 11th March, 1972 the wage scales of the employees had been fixed and the said wage scale according to the award was to remain operative for a period of ten years and consequently in view of S. 3 (2A) of the Act the applications were not maintainable. It may be pointed out that the minimum wages which were claimed by the aforesaid two applications were on the basis of a notification dated 11th Aug. 1972, whereby minimum wages of certain categories of workmen of cinema houses was fixed at Rs. 100/- per month. It has not been disputed that the workmen in respect of whom the two applications were made fell within the category of the workmen who were entitled under the notification dated 11th Aug. 1972 to the minimum wages at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, respondent No. 1, after considering the submissions made by the parties overruled both the preliminary objections by his order dated 20th Nov. 1973 and fixed date in each of the two cases for hearing on merits. Writ petition No. 1857 of 1974 was filed against the aforesaid order dated Nov.20, 1973. In the other case, however the employers contested the matter even on merits and respondent No. 1 by his order dated 21st Dec. 1973 awarded a sum of Rs. 2430/- as the difference of the minimum wages and a sum of Rs. 24,300/- as compensation being ten times penalty of the amount of the minimum wages not paid as contemplated by S. 20 (3) of the Act. It is this award dated 21st Dec,1973, which is sought to be quashed in writ petition No. 1931 of 1974.
(2.) The common points which were urged in each of these two writ petitions are (1) that Shri J. S. P. Pandey who filed the applications dated 27th Aug.1973, before, respondent No. 1 had not. been validly appointed as an Inspector under the Act and consequently no action could be taken on the basis of those applications and (2) that the award dated 11th March, 1972 was to remain operative for ten years in view of the direction contained therein and consequently in view of S. 3 (2-A) of the Act the applications made on 27th Aug., 1973, were not maintainable. A third objection was raised in writ petition No. 1931 of 1974 viz, that the amount of the difference of minimum wages had wrongly been stated as Rs. 2430/- in the award. According to the petitioner the correct amount would be Rs. 1310.68. This plea was raised by means of an amendment application which has been allowed by a separate order today. Yet another plea which has been raised by counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition was that the award of the maximum penalty of ten times was arbitrary.
(3.) We will first deal with the two common submissions made in each of these two writ petitions. The first submission is based on the language of S. 19 of the Act. Sub-sec. (1) provides that the appropriate Government may, by notification in the official gazette appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be Inspectors for the purposes of this Act, and define the local limits within which they shall exercise their functions. "Appropriate government" has been defined in S. 2 (b) of the Act and in view of the said definition the State Government (of) Uttar Pradesh would be the 'appropriate government' Shri J. S. P. Pandey was appointed as Inspector for the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh by notification dated 11th Aug., 1972. The relevant notification has been quoted in para 8 of the Writ Petition No. 1857 of 1974. It is the same notification by which the minimum wages in respect of certain categories of workmen of cinema houses were fixed at Rs. 100/- p. m. in cities having one lac or more than one lac population. It was urged that S. 19 of the Act contemplated the appointment of an Inspector with reference to local limits and unless 'local limits' were defined within which an Inspector was to exercise his functions the appointment was not in accordance with the provisions of S. 19. We find it difficult to accept this submission. On a plain reading of sub-sec. (1) of S. 19 it is apparent that it is in two parts. The first entitles the 'Appropriate government' by notification in the official gazettee to "appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be Inspectors for the purposes of this Act" and the second part requires the appropriate goverment to 'define the local limits within which they shall exercise their functions'. The argument that no Inspector could be appointed for the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh in our opinion is not borne out even from the language of S. 19 (1). Reliance was placed by counsel for the petitioners on the decisions of single Judge of this Court in State V/s. Kailash Chandra Bhargava, 1971 AllLJ 14 wherein it was held that S. 29 of the U.P.Shops and Commercial Establishment Act makes it clear that the State Government could appoint only a Chief Inspector and a Deputy Chief Inspector for the whole of Uttar Pradesh and that the other inspectors may be appointed only for different areas. S. 29 did nor empower the State Government to appoint an Inspector other than a Chief Inspector and a Deputy Chief Inspector for the whole of Uttar Pradesh for filing a complaint or for exercising the powers enumerated in S. 30 of the Act in the whole of Uttar Pradesh though the State Government may appoint as many inspectors as they like for different areas. The said case, in our opinion, is distinguishable in view of the difference between the language of S. 19 (1) of the Act and of S. 29 of the U.P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. Reference to the language of S. 19 (1) has already been made above. S. 29 of the U. P. Shops and Commercial Establishment Act reads :- "S. 29 Appointment of Inspector. The State Government may appoint a Chief Inspector, and a Deputy Chief Inspector, for the whole of Uttar Pradesh, and as many Inspectors for different areas thereof as may be considered necessary". Under S. 29 the appointment of the Inspectors can be made only "for different areas". That is however, not the case with the appointment of an Inspector under S. 19 (1) of the Act. Reliance was then placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this court in State of U. P. V/s. Sat Narain, 1959 AIR(All) 218. The question which came up for consideration in that case was in regard to the appointment of a special judge as contemplated by S. 6 (1) and S. 7 (3) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. The case too, in our opinion, is distinguishable. S. 6 (1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act aforesaid contemplated that the State Government may by notification in the offical gazette appoint as many special judges as may be necessary for such 'area or areas' as may be specified in the notification. There again the appointment of the special Judges could be made only for such "area or areas". In that case the appointment which was made did not make any specification of the area whatsoever and it was in these circumstances that it was held that the appointment of the special judge concerned was not in accordance with law. In our opinion the decision which goes nearer the point is that rendered by a single judge of this court in P. N.Dube V/s. State of U. P.,1978 37 FLR 334. In that case S. 8 of the Factories Act came up for consideration. S. 8 (1) of the Factories Act, which is relevant is as follows: "S. 8 (1) Inspectors The State Government may by notification in the official gazette appoint such persons as possess the prescribed qualification to be Inspectors for the purpose of this Act and may assign to them such local limits as it may think fit". On a comparison of the language of this section with language of S. 19 (1) of the Act it is apparent that the two sections are in pari materia. In P. N. Dube's case it was observed that it is for the State Govt. to confer powers upon the Inspector to exercise jurisdiction either throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh or within a particular area.;