MADHYA PRADESH BIDI UDYOG SANGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, whe are bidi manufacturers, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenge the notification dated 19th December 1979 (Annexure -B) issued under sections 3 and 5(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 fixing rates of minimum wages for certain classes of employees.

(2.) THE proposal to fix minimum wages for three classes of employees, namely, Munim, Chowkidar and Cook (Rasoiya) was published on 25th June 1979. The notice publishing the proposal stated that the proposal will be taken into consideration after the expiry of two months from the date of publication of the notification in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette. It further stated that any objection or suggestion which may be received from any person with respect to the said proposal within the said period will be considered by the State Government. The proposal notified in so far as relevant was as follows:

(3.) It was lastly contended by the learned counsel that the proposal related to only three categories of employees, namely, Munim, Chowkidar and Cook whereas the final notification has fixed the rates of minimum wages of many other categories. In our opinion this contention must be accepted A comparison of the notifications under section 5(1)(b) and section 5(2) will show that Accountant, Cashier, Store -keeper, Head -Clerk who have been included with Munim at serial No. 1 were not mentioned in the proposal. Similarly, Typist Bill -man etc. mentioned at serial No. 2 do not at all find place in the proposal. The same is the case with respect to the workers and employees mentioned at serial Nos. 5 and 6. In our opinion, it is necessary that the proposal must indicate the class or classes of employees for which the Government proposes to fix rates of minimum wages. If a particular class of employees is not indicated in the proposal, neither the employers nor the employees will have any opportunity to make any representation in the matter of fixation of rates of minimum wages for that category and the object behind section 5(11)(b) would be entirely defeated. In this view of the matter, notification under section 5(2) cannot have application for those classes of employees which are not mentioned in the notification under section 5(1)(b) The learned Government Advocate submitted that Accountant/Cashier/Store -keeper/Head -Clerk who are included at serial No 1 can be included in the same category as Munim. It is difficult to accept this contention. The work of a Munim may have some resemblance with the work of an Accountant or a Cashier or even a Head -Clerk, but there is no material to hold that in the bidi industry the employees known by these names have to do same or similar work. Moreover, so far as the Store keeper is concerned, it cannot be said that he falls under the same category as Munim. The workers and employees at serial Nos. 5 and 6 are not at all mentioned in the original notification. The final notification under section 5(2) cannot, in our opinion, be given effect to except in respect of Munim, Chowkidar and Cook who are mentioned in the notification under section 5(1)(b).