INDIAN MICA MINERS AND DEALERS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have moved this Court against the order passed by the State Government by notification No. VI/W3 -1081/68 -L & -E -79/(6), dated the 20th of May, 1968 (annexure 5 to the petition), under Clause (b) of Sub -section (1) of Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, revising the minimum rates payable in the whole of Bihar to such categories of employees 5 employed in the Mica Work (Mica Mines and Factories) as fixed earlier, and the other passed under notification No. VI/W3 -1081/68 -L & E -963(6), dated the 20th of June, 1968 (annexure 5/1 to the petition), by which the State Government issued errata and made corrections in the above notification (annexure 5). By the first notification the Government of Bihar fixed the minimum wages for the categories of employees under the petitioners and by the second notification, according to the petitioners, there was an enhancement of the minimum rates of wages of a large number of categories of employees employed in Mica Works. The following general questions have been raised by learned Counsel in support of the application.

(2.) As to the first point, which is the only point of importance urged by learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners, he has referred to two decisions, one being, Narottamdas v. Gowarikar 1961 (1) L. L. J. 442 and the other being, Banalesh. S. Patel v. Stale of Andhra Pradesh 1965 (1) L. L. J. 28. The first judgment was delivered in the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the second judgment contains the decision of Andhra Pradesh, High Court, In the case of Narottamdas, learned Judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court expressed the opinion that a committee constituted under Section 5(1) of the Act (which refers to the personnel of the committee) ha? to follow the provision of Section 9, which runs thus: Each of the committees, subcommittees and the Advisory Board shall consist of persons to be nominated by the appropriate Government representing employers and employees in the scheduled employments, who shall be equal in number, and independent persons not exceeding one -third of its total number of members; one of such independent persons shall be appointed the Chairman by the appropriate Government. The question for consideration before the Madhya Pradesh High Court was whether a Government servant such as the Labour Commissioner can or cannot be regarded as an independent person within the meaning of Section 9. The learned Judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court came to the conclusion that a Government servant could not be regarded as an independent person because Government also would be taken to be interested in the sense that Government has got a policy in such labour disputes and a Government servant may well be suspected of tipping the balance in the decision of the committee in favour of the Government point of view. It cannot however, be gathered from the judgment as to how exactly the Government can be held to be interested in a dispute between the management and the employees of the industry except in so far as Government is interested in "securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief, and that it shall, endeavour to secure...a living wage ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities". We are unable to see now this broad policy of the State enjoined under Articles 42 and 43 of the Constitution can in any way make the Government; a party interested in the immediate issue of fixing a fair rate of wages regulating the relationship between the employee and the employee in an industry. It is true that the view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has been followed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the other decision referred to above. As opposed to it, however, learned Counsel for the opposite party has drawn our attention to the following decisions:

(3.) The next point raised by learned Counsel is with regard to annexure 5/1. We have already indi(sic) (sic) that this is considered as revision of the wage scales of the various categories of the workers mentioned in annexure 5/1, but, according to learned Counsel for the opposite party, this revision was only of an arithmetical or technical nature. A look at the revision shows that the upward revision is only of a few pice in the wages to be paid to certain categories of workers. It is true, no doubt, that if the revision were to be considered as revision, as a whole, of the minimum wages fixed under annexure 5, it might be that a fresh reference to a committee would be necessitated and the requirement of law of consulting the employers also would have to be fulfilled before revision could be ordered by Government. As it is, however, we have looked into the statement filed on behalf of the petitioners and we find nothing there to show that arty allegation has been made that the revision of wages under annexure 5/1 was as a result of change of policy. It is true, no doubt, that some allegation has been made to, that effect in the grounds, but that is not sufficient. If anything, in the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, it has been maintained that it is not revision of policy which resulted in the minor increase in wages, but the increase was only of an arithmetical character. A question has been raised on behalf of the opposite party that it was in pursuance of a statement of policy made on the floor of the Bihar Assembly by the then Chief Minister. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the statement alleged to have been made by the Chief Minister should be called for. We have not felt warranted in acceding to the prayer of calling for the said statement made on the floor of the House because there is no clear averment to that effect in the petition itself, the Change also is of such a minor nature that it is very difficult to hold that it was as a result of any change in policy. This contention also, therefore, urged on behalf of the petitioners by teamed Counsel must be held to be one without substance.