DWARKA PRASAD, J. - (1.) IN both these appeals, a question about the validity of Minimum Wages (Rajasthan Amendment and Validation) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amending Act') has been raised.
(2.) M/s Duduwala & Co. , Bhilwara and M/s Rajasthan Mineral and Co. , Bhilwara filed two separate writ petitions in this Court challenging the validity of the provisions of the Amending Act. The learned single Judge by his orders dated September 24, 1971 declared that the provisions of the Amending Act were ultra vires of the powers of the State Legislature. The main order was passed by the learned single Judge in the case of M/s Duduwala & Co. , while in M/s Rajasthan Mineral & Co. 's case the learned single Judge observed that the facts and circumstances of that case were identical with those of M/s Duduwala & Co 's case and that the order given in Duduwala & Co. 's case would also govern and shall be considered as part of the order in M/s Rajasthan Mineral Co. 's case. Both the writ petitioners, M/s Duduwala & Co. and M/s Rajasthan Mineral & Co. carried on the business of mica mining in Bhilwara District of the State of Rajasthan and they employed a large number of workmen in the mica mines, which were taken by them on lease from the State Government. By a notification dated July 31, 1965, the State Government prescribed minimum rates of wages for the workmen employed in mica mines in the State of Rajasthan in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by section 3 read with sub-section (2)of section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The writ petitioners and some other leaseholders of mica mines challenged the validity of the aforesaid notification by filing writ petitions in this Court, inter-alia on the ground that the Advisory Board on the basis of whose advice the aforesaid notification was issued by the State Government, was not properly constituted in accordance with the provisions of section 9 of the Minimum Wages Act. This Court, by its decision in the case of Hari Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (1), struck down the notification issued by the State Government on July 31, 1965 and held that the composition of the Advisory Board was not in accordance with the provisions of section 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, inasmuch as the Advisory Board was composed merely of the employer's representatives and the employees' representatives, but it did not include any independent members, which was envisaged by the provisions of section 9. This Court held in Hari Ram's case (1) that the aforesaid notification issued by the State Government suffered from a defect of fundamental nature, and as it was issued on the basis of consultation with an improperly constituted Advisory Board, the same was void. Thereafter, on December 25, 1968, the State Government issued the Minimum Wages (Rajasthan Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1968, which purported to validate the minimum wages prescribed by the State Government by the notification dated July 31, 1965. This Ordinance was later on replaced by an Act of the State Legislature which was reserved for and received the assent of the President of India on April 3, 1969. Amending Act purported to amend the provisions of sec. 9 of the Minium Wages Act, 1948 (Central Act No. 11 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by adding the following explanation thereto : "explanation:- For the purposes of this section, an officer of the State Government shall be deemed to be 'independent; notwithstanding that the State Government is an employer in any scheduled employment. " The Amending Act also purported to remove the defect or irregularity in the constitution of the Advisory Board by inserting after section 9, a new section 9-A in the principal Act, which runs as follows:- "9- A FINALITY OF ORDERS CONSTITUTING BOARD, COMMITTEE, SUB-COMMITTEE, ETC, - No order of the State Government nominating any person as Chairman or a Member of the Advisory Board or a Committee or Sub-committee shall be called in question in any manner and no action or proceedings before any Board, Committee or Sub-Committee shall be called in question in any manner in any court of law on the ground merely of the existence of any vacancy in or any defect or irregularity in the constitution of such Board, Committee or Sub -Committee. " The Amending Act also validated the rates of minimum wages prescribed by the earlier notification issued by the State Government, notwithstanding any judicial decision to the contrary. Section 3l-A, which was newly introduced in the principal Act after section 31, for the purpose of the aforesaid validation, reads as under:- "31-A, VALIDATION OF CERTAIN MINIMUM RATES AND WAGES. The rates of Minimum Wages (Rajasthan Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1968, in respect of employment Nos. 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,10,11, 13, 14, 16, 17, in Part I of the Schedule to the Act and employment in agriculture in Part II of the Schedule to the Act, shall be deemed always to have been validly fixed or revised, as the case may be, and shall be and shall be deemed to have come into force on the date such fixation or revision has been brought into force by the State Government by a notification in the Official Gazette, notwithstanding any judicial decision to the contrary or any defect or irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or the Sub-Committee, or the Advisory Board under section 5 or section 7 of the Act read with section 9 thereof or publication of the notification in the Official Gazette or noncompliance with any other requirement of law and shall not be called in question in any court merely on the ground that there was a failure to comply with the provisions of the Act. " The effect of the amendments sought to be made by the provisions of the Amending Act was to nullify the result of the pronouncement of this Court in Hari Ram's case (1) as it was provided that an Officer of the State Government appointed on the Advisory Board shall be deemed to be an independent person, notwithstanding the fact that the State Government was an employer in any Scheduled employment.
(3.) THE provisions of the Amending Act were challenged by the writ petitioners mainly on the ground that the State Legislature was not competent to enact a law relating to labour employed in the mines in the State of Rajasthan. THE contention advanced by the writ petitioners was accepted by the learned Single Judge, who held that under Entry No. 55 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, Parliament had exclusive jurisdiction to enact laws regulating labour and safety in mines and oil fields. THE learned Judge held that the Minimum Wages Act was enacted for the welfare of labour and as such only Parliament was competent to amend the principal Act in respect of labour working in the mines and that the State Legislature was not competent to enact a law regulating the conditions of labour working in the mines. In these special appeals, it was urged by Mr. A. K. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General that the provisions of the Amending Act was not ultra vires of the powers of the State Legislature as the subject matter thereof was covered by Entry 24 of List III of Schedule VII of the Constitution, relating to welfare of labour and as the provisions of the Amending Act were covered under item No. 24 of the Concurrent List, the law could have been enacted by the State Legislature with the assent of the President. It was pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General that the Amending Act was reserved for the assent of the President and become law after receiving his assent on April 3, 1969. Mr. H. M. Parekh appearing for the respondent canvassed the view taken by the learned single Judge. Article 246 of the Constitution of India lays down that the Parliament has exclusive power to enact laws in respect of any of the matters enumerated in List I of the Seventh Schedule, called the Union List. However, the Parliament as well as the State Legislatures have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule, known as the Concurrent List, while the State Legisltaure has the exclusive jurisdiction to enact laws in respect of matters enumerated in List II of the Seventh Schedule, referred to as the State List. Article 254 of the Constitution provides that if the law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by the Parliament, then the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall prevail in that State, if such law has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, as the Amending Act was reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, the provisions thereof shall prevail in the State of Rajasthan, by virtue of clause (2) of Article 254 of the Constitution, as the subject matter of the enactment was covered by Entry 24 of the Concurrent List. On the other hand it was argued by Mr. H. M. Parekh that as exclusive power to enact laws in respect of matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule has been vested in Parliament by the Constitution, that exclusive power cannot be circumvented even if the power of Parliament to enact laws in respect of those matters is partially covered by some other entries enumerated in List II or III of the Seventh Schedule. ;