- (1.) BY Court -Heard learned counsel for the parties. The short but important question involved in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether GUL industry is covered under the provisions of the Minimum Wags Act, 1948.
(2.) THE facts in short are that the petitioner -appellant is a GUL manufacturing factory and GUL consists of major quantity of tobacco. According to the writ petitioner -appellant, it is true that under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, under Part -I of the Schedule of Act, there is an entry "employment" in any tobacco including Bid J making "manufactory" (factory) but no notification has been issued by the State Government under clause (a) of sub -section (1) of Section -3 of the Minimum wages Act, 1948, to include any GUL factory or manufacturer in the coverage of the Act of 1948 as further notification is required as has been done in the cases to cover "Kendu" and "Bidi" industries vide separate notifications. It is also submitted that, fixing the minimum wages for the employees working in the GUL factory, no notification has been issued. It is submitted that even after having the Entry no. 3 in Part -1 of the Schedule, whenever State Government wanted to fix the minimum wages for the employees working in the Tobacco manufactory (factory) then notifications were issued. To demonstrate, the learned counsel for the petitioner -appellant has shown us the Notification dated 12th December, 1995; the Notification dated 5th April, 2005 and lastly the Notification whereby separate wages has been prescribed for the employee, working and processing of the Kendu leaves, which is dated 13th August, 2005, for the employees of the Bidi manufacturing factories, separate rates have been prescribed for different employment in the Bidi manufacturing manufactory. However, GUL may consist of major part of tobacco but for the employees engaged in the GUL factory, no minimum rate has been prescribed by the State Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner -appellant vehemently submitted that Madras High Court in the case of Sasha (A.S.D.) VS. State of Madras, reported in, (1963) 1 LLJ 29 has also considered the same issue and found that for the snuff industry no exercise has been done by the Government under Section 9 for fixing the rates and thereafter issuing a Notification and, therefore, the minimum wages for the workers in snuff industry on the advice of a committee is illegal and consequently quashed that Notification. It is submitted that the Union has relied upon the Notification of the State Government, which has no application and that is not even the Notification and that is only a letter conveying that GUL industry is governed under Clause (a) of sub -section (1) of Section 3 read with Entry -3 of Part -1, being an industry manufacturing tobacco product.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State as well as the Union's representative drew our attention to the Government Notification dated 1.4.2011, copy of which has been placed as Annexure -B along with the affidavit to show that appropriate Notification has been issued under the Act of 1948 and specifically under the provisions of Section 3(1)(b) as well as under Section 5, sub -section (2) and fixed the minimum wages for all employees working in the shops or in any establishment described in the Schedule and which are not covered under any other Notification and, therefore, the petitioner -Industry is covered under Clause (a) of sub -section (1) of Section -3 read with Entry 3 of Part -1 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.;