TYAGI, J. - (1.) PETITIONER Messrs Panna Singh Premchand Chauhan has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the fixation of the minimum wages by the State Government vide its notification dated March 26, 1969 (Annexure II) under the Minimum Wages Act of 1948 (hereinafter called the Act ).
(2.) PETITIONER's case is that it got the 'bidis' manufactured by the Bidi-rollers by providing them raw material in the form of Tendu leaves and tobacco. These persons prepars Bidis at their homes and deliver them to the petitioner after they are properly rolled PETITIONER's contention is that it has no supervision or control over the working of the Bidi-rollers and therefore the element of master and servant is absent in the relationship of the petitioner with these Bidi-rollers It is contended that the State Government issued a notification S. O. 54 on 26 3 1969, under the provisions of the Act and thereby fixed the minimum wages Rs. 2 per 1000 Bidis for Bidi-rollers. The fixation of these minimum wages, according to the petitioner, was made by the State Government in clear violation of the provisions of sec. 5 of the Act inasmuch as the Government did not consult the Advisory Board under proviso to sub-sec. (2) sec. 5 of the Act. The second contention of the petitioner is that the provisions of the Act can not be attracted to the petitioners employees as there exists no relationship of master and servants between the labourers employed by the petitioner's firm The argument of the petitioner is that since the Bidi-rollers prepare Bidis for the petitioner at their respective homes there is no control of the petitioner on the working of these Bidi-rollers, which is a necessary element to create the relationship of master and servant. In such circumstances it is prayed by the petitioner that the notification issued by the State Government on 26th March, 1969, be quashed by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction and the State of Rajasthan, their agents, servants and officers be restrained from enforcing the schedule of minimum vages as contained in the said notification. No reply has been filed by the State Government or any other respondent. It is, however, stated at the Bar by the Dy. G. Advocate representing all the respondents that he has received directions from the Govt. to state that the A dvisor Board was duly consulted by the Government before the impugned notification was issued by the State Government and, therefore, it cannot be said that the notification suffers from the defect of violating the mandate contained in the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of sec. 5 of the Act. It was also argued by learned Deputy Government Advocate that to attract the provisions of the Act it is enough if the relationship between the petitioner and the Bidi-rollers was that of employer and employee. The wages fixed by the State Government in the impugned notification according to Mr Purohit shows that the manufacturer is not asked to pay daily wages or monthly wages to the Bidi rollers, but if the work is taken from the employees on contract basis then in that event the Bidi manufacturer has to pay to the Bidi-roller wage @ Rs. 2 for 1000 Bidis. The contention of the petitioner that the provisions of the Act cannot be attracted to fix the minimum wages of the employees of the petitioner because there does not exists a relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and its employees has, in my opinion, no force. The examination of the scheme of the Act discloses that the appropriate Government has an authority under the Act to fix the minimum rates of wages payable to employees employed in an employment specified in Part I and Part II of the Schedule. It is admitted that the employment provided by the Bidi manufacturers falls within the ambit of the scheduled employment. The word "employee" has been defined in the Act, and according to this definition "employee" means any person who is employed for hire or reward to do any work, skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical, in a scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed. The word "employer" has also been defined and it means any person who employs, whether directly or through another person, or whether on behalf of himself or any other person, one or more employees in any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act. Bidi-rollors who are employed by the petitioner for the purposes of rolling the 'bidis' for remuneration undoubtedly fall within the definition of the word 'employee' as defined in the Act. The petitioner also comes within the ambit of the term employer. Under the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of S. 3 an appropriate Govt. can fix minimum rate of wages which may govern the case of such employees who are employed on the basis of piece work. In the present case the minimum wage fixed by the Govt. of the Bidi-rollers is on the basis of the work turn out by them and the employees employed by the petitioner, who are known as Bidi-rollers. , are entitled to receive under the Act minimum wages fixed by the Government @ Rs. 2 per one thousand Bidis. In these circumstances the fixation of the minimum wage at the rate of Rs. 2 per one thousand Bidis was within the competence of the Government. This contention of the petitioner's counsel that the relation between the master and the servants exists only when there is a direct control and supervision over the werking of servants by the master, has no force. In the present case the Bidi-rollers have been engaged on contract basis by the petitioner and they are entitled to remuneration for the work done by them for the petitioner. In my opinion it cannot be said by the petitioner that the relationship of employees and employed does not exists between the petitioner and the Bidi-rollers. I, therefore, reject this contention of the petitioner. In view of the statement made at the Bar by the learned Deputy Government Advocate that the Advisory Board was consulted by the Government before the impugned notification was issued by it I see no force in the objection raised by the petitioner that the minimum wages were fixed in violation of the mandate contained in the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of sec. 5 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not prepared even to-day to contradict the statement made at the Bar by Mr. Purohit. I also do not find any reason to disbelieve the statement of learned counsel for the respondents. In this view of the matter second contention of the petitioner also fails. For the reasons mentioned above the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. . ;