P.A.CHOUDARY J. - (1.) T. G. Lakshmaiah Setty and Sons, a partnership firm. owns an oil mill at Adoni, Kurnool district. It challenges the validity of the Minimum Wages Act (herein called the Act) and also G. O. Ms. No. 559 dated 30-6-1975, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh by means of which the minimum rates of wages payable to the workers in the oil mills in the State of Andhra Pradesh were revised with effect from 5-5-75. Nearly four years after the State revised the wages, the petitioner-firm felt greatly aggrieved by that almost minimal action of the State of A. P. The firm considers this act of revising the minimum wages for the oil workers as an unwarranted act of State invasion of its precious fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 (1) (f) and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. It has, therefore, filed this writ petition.
(2.) The petitioner's counsel raised in main five contentions in support of his attack on the validity of these proceedings. Firstly, he said the Act passed by our Central Legislature much prior to our Constitution, has now become void under the deadly impact of Articles 19 (1) (f) and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India on the existing laws, Secondly, the petitioner's counsel has argued that even on the assumption that the Act is constitutional, the subordinate action taken by the State is invalid for the reason that the aforesaid G. O. treated all oil mill workers spread throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh as equals, thus violating Article 14 which forbids the State from treating unequals as equals. The third line of attack is based on the argument that the aforesaid G. O, did not take into account as it is obliged to do under the obligations imposed by Articles 19 (1) (f) and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution the capacity of the petitioner to pay the revised wages. Fourthly. it is said for the petitioner that the aforesaid G. O. is invalid as the State Government did not follow the procedure as it failed to specify the date under Section 5 (1) (b) of the Act indicating when the objections to the draft proposals to revise the minimum wages would be taken into consideration. Finally. it is contended, that as the final scales of minimum wages notified by means of the impugned G. O. are higher than those draft notified and as the petitioner did not have an opportunity to object to the final scale of wages now imposed the aforesaid G. O. is not in conformity with Section 5 (1) (b) of the Act.
(3.) The first argument of the petitioner is based on the reasoning that he has a fundamental right to carry on the business of an oil mill and that right is protected by the language of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution and inasmuch as the Minimum Wages Act prevents the petitioner from running his mill on the basis of a wage system mutually agreed to between him and his workmen, it is violative of his right guaranteed to him under that Article. On that basis, it is also argued, that it takes away the petitioner's right to property guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution.;