# CHANDRA BHAV AN BOARDING AND LODGING, BANGALORE v. THE STATE OF MYSORE AND ANR

- **Citation:** [1970] 2 S.C.R. 600
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-09-29
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1617 of 1967
- **Bench:** S. M. SIKRl, G. K. Mitter, K. S. Hegde, A. N. Ray, P. Jaganmohan Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/chandra-bhav-an-boarding-and-lodging-bangalore-v-the-state-of-mysore-and-anr-4926
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

Miniumum Wages Act, 1948 ss. 5(1)-Va/idity of-Power of Govern·
ment to fix minimum wages either by method ins. 5(l)(a) nr s. 5(1)
(b) whether unguided-Power of Government to fix minimum wages
whether resttrictive of trade and business-Whether a quasi-iudicial power
requiring compliance with rules of natural !~lice-Fixing different rates
of wages for different industries and zones whether valid-Valuntion of
food supplied to workmen.
Section 5(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 provides for
the
fixation and revision of minimum wages in the schedllled industries
by the appropriate Government. Under s. 5 (I) (a) such fixation or revision
is to be made after enquiry by a committee or committees appointed for
the purpose. Under s. 5(1)(b) the appropriate Government may by
notification publish its proposals in this regard and take its decision after
considering the representations of those affected.
If the
Government
adopts the latter method for revision of wages, it has also before. doing
so to consult the Advisory Board constituted under the Act. The State
Government of Mysore after following the method prescribed in s. 5 (I)
(b) and after consulting the Advisory Board constituted under s., 7 <'f
the Act by notification in S.O. 1038
dated !st June, 1967 fixed
the
minimum wages for different classes of employees in residenti•l hostels
and e&ting houses in the State of Mysore. The appellant filed a writ
petition in the High Court questioning the validity of the notification and
failing there, appealed to this Court. The notification was also challenged by a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution. It was urged
on behalf of the appellant and petitioners that the power given to the
Government to choose between the methods provided in ss. 5(1) (a) and
5 (I) (b) was arbitrary and unguided; that the arbitrary power given to
the Central •nd State Governments to fix minimum wages was violative
of freedom of trade guaranteed in Art. 19(1) (f) of the Constitution;
that the State Government had not observed the principles of natural
justice in exercising its quasi-judicial power of fixing minimum wages;
and that it was incumbent on Government to appoint a committee under
s. 5(!)(a). The fixation of different rates of wages for different indus·
tries and zones in the State was also attacked. It was finally submitted
that the Yaluation of the food supplied to the workmen
was
without
authority of law and at an unreasonably low figure.
HELD : Procedural inequality if real and substantial is within the
vice of Art 14. But if a power is given to an authority to have recourse
to different procedures under different circumstances, that power cannot
be considered an arbitrary power. The power under s. 5 (I) is given
to the State Government and not to any petty official. The State Government can be trusted to exercise that power to further the purposes
of the Act. [608 H-609 BJ
Art. 43 of the Constitution as well as the Geneva Conventi911
of
1928· enjoin the State to secure to all workers conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
CHANDRA BHAVAN V. MYSORE
601
and cultural opportunities. The fixing of the minimum wages is just the
first step in that direction. The concept of minimum wage .. is likely to
undergo a chana~ with the gro1'1h of our economy and with the change
in the standard ox living. It is not a static concept Its concomitants
must necessarily increase with the progress of the Society. It is absolutely
impossible for the legislature to undertake the task of fixing minimum ·
wages in rescect of an industry much less in respect of an employment.
That process must necessarily be left to the Government. [6C9 G-H; 610
A]
In respect of s. 5 (I) the legislative policy has been laid down with
sufficient clearnes·s. The Government is merely charged with the duty of
implementing that policy. Whether under s. 5(1) (a) or under s. 5(1) (b)
the procedure is only

## Text

_Characters 0–39,861 of 42,231. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39861 for what follows._

600
CHANDRA BHAV AN BOARDING AND LODGING,
BANGALORE
v.
THE STATE OF MYSORE AND ANR.
September 29, 1969
[S. M. SIKRl, G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE, A. N. RAY AND
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.]
Miniumum Wages Act, 1948 ss. 5(1)-Va/idity of-Power of Govern·
ment to fix minimum wages either by method ins. 5(l)(a) nr s. 5(1)
(b) whether unguided-Power of Government to fix minimum wages
whether resttrictive of trade and business-Whether a quasi-iudicial power
requiring compliance with rules of natural !~lice-Fixing different rates
of wages for different industries and zones whether valid-Valuntion of
food supplied to workmen.
Section 5(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 provides for
the
fixation and revision of minimum wages in the schedllled industries
by the appropriate Government. Under s. 5 (I) (a) such fixation or revision
is to be made after enquiry by a committee or committees appointed for
the purpose. Under s. 5(1)(b) the appropriate Government may by
notification publish its proposals in this regard and take its decision after
considering the representations of those affected.
If the
Government
adopts the latter method for revision of wages, it has also before. doing
so to consult the Advisory Board constituted under the Act. The State
Government of Mysore after following the method prescribed in s. 5 (I)
(b) and after consulting the Advisory Board constituted under s., 7 <'f
the Act by notification in S.O. 1038
dated !st June, 1967 fixed
the
minimum wages for different classes of employees in residenti•l hostels
and e&ting houses in the State of Mysore. The appellant filed a writ
petition in the High Court questioning the validity of the notification and
failing there, appealed to this Court. The notification was also challenged by a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution. It was urged
on behalf of the appellant and petitioners that the power given to the
Government to choose between the methods provided in ss. 5(1) (a) and
5 (I) (b) was arbitrary and unguided; that the arbitrary power given to
the Central •nd State Governments to fix minimum wages was violative
of freedom of trade guaranteed in Art. 19(1) (f) of the Constitution;
that the State Government had not observed the principles of natural
justice in exercising its quasi-judicial power of fixing minimum wages;
and that it was incumbent on Government to appoint a committee under
s. 5(!)(a). The fixation of different rates of wages for different indus·
tries and zones in the State was also attacked. It was finally submitted
that the Yaluation of the food supplied to the workmen
was
without
authority of law and at an unreasonably low figure.
HELD : Procedural inequality if real and substantial is within the
vice of Art 14. But if a power is given to an authority to have recourse
to different procedures under different circumstances, that power cannot
be considered an arbitrary power. The power under s. 5 (I) is given
to the State Government and not to any petty official. The State Government can be trusted to exercise that power to further the purposes
of the Act. [608 H-609 BJ
Art. 43 of the Constitution as well as the Geneva Conventi911
of
1928· enjoin the State to secure to all workers conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
CHANDRA BHAVAN V. MYSORE
601
and cultural opportunities. The fixing of the minimum wages is just the
first step in that direction. The concept of minimum wage .. is likely to
undergo a chana~ with the gro1'1h of our economy and with the change
in the standard ox living. It is not a static concept Its concomitants
must necessarily increase with the progress of the Society. It is absolutely
impossible for the legislature to undertake the task of fixing minimum ·
wages in rescect of an industry much less in respect of an employment.
That process must necessarily be left to the Government. [6C9 G-H; 610
A]
In respect of s. 5 (I) the legislative policy has been laid down with
sufficient clearnes·s. The Government is merely charged with the duty of
implementing that policy. Whether under s. 5(1) (a) or under s. 5(1) (b)
the procedure is only for gathering the necessary information.
The Government is not bouJ.ld by the: advice of the committee appointed under
s, 5 (I)( a), Discretion to select one of the two procedures prescribed
for collecting the data is advisedly left to the Government. The powers
conferred on the Government cannot be considered as eithc:r ungui<le<l or
arbitrary.
In the present case the Government had before it the. question
of fixing minimum wages for residential hotels and eating houses since
1960 and therefore, it was reasonable to assume that it had
adequate
material on the basis of which it could formulate its proposals.
Before
publishing its propos"als, the Government had consulted the advisory committee constituted under s. 7. Under those circumstonces it could not be
held that either the power conferred under s. 5 (I) was an arbitrary power
or that the same had been arbitrarily exercised. (610 B-G]
(ii) There was nothing to show that the minimum wages fixed wcr~
basically wrong so as to adversely affect the industry or even a small unit
therein. If they do, then the industry or the unit as the case may be has
no right to exist.
Freedom of, trade does not mean freedom to exploit.
The provisions of the Constitution are not erected as ba'rriers to progress.
It is a fallacy to think that in our Constitution there are only rights and
no duties.
There is no conftbt between
Part III and Part IV of the
Constitution which arc complementary and supplemental to each other.
The hopes and aspirations aroused by the Constitution will be belied if
the minimum needs of the lowest of our citizens are not met.
The plea
based on Art. 19(1) (f) raised in the present case could not therefore
succeed. (612 D-El
(iii) The principles of natural justice arc not embodied rules.
What
particular rules of natural justice. if any, should apply to a ~iven case
must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case.
the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the tribunal or body of persons appointed for the purpose. Taking
into consideration the provisions of the Mit;11nrim Wages Act. the ob·
jective behind it, the purposes intended to be achieved ·and the high authority on which power had been conferred there could be no doubt that the
procedure adopted was adequate and effective. There was equally no
doubt that reasonable opportunity bad been given to all the concerned
parties to represent their case.
It could not be ·11cceoted that the impugn·
ed order was vitiated because of the Governmeiit's failure to constitute a
cotT?mittee under s. S(l)(a). [612 H-613 CJ
There was also no substance in the contention that the Government
was not competent to enhance the rate rne.ntioned in the proposals pub·
Jished. If it had power ro reduce those rates as desired by the employers.
it necessarily followed that. it had power to enhance them.
There was no
merit in the contention that the Government must go on publishing proposals after proposals until a stage is reached where no change whatso·
ever is necessary to be made in the last.proposal made. [613 CJ
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 2 s.c.R.
(iv) The contention that the Government has no power to fix different
A
minimum wages for different industries or in different localities is no
more available in view of this Court's decisions in MI s Bhaikusa Yanwsa
Kahatriya·~,. case.
The fixation of minimum wages depends on the prevailing economic conditions, the cost of living in a place1 the nature of
the work to be performed and the conditions in which the work is performr..i.
The contention that it was impermissible for the Government
to divide: the State into several zones was opposed to s. 3 (3) as well as
B
to the scheme of the Act. [613 E]
On the basis of the material on reccird it could not be said that the
various zones had no rational basis. In considering the Zones the relevant
consideratic:n is the cost of living in a locality and not the cost of living
index. [613 Fl
(v) On the facts of the case the contention relating to the value of
the food that may be supplied to an employee was not merely petty but
misconcived. The supply of meals to workers. was only an option given and
not a duty imposed on the employer.
Therefore the procedure prescribed
in r. 21 cf the rules framed under the Act was inapplicable to the case.
The supply of food was an amenity and the rule applicable was there·
fore r. 22(2)(v).
I.Question whether fixntion of minimum wages is a quasi.judicial act
left open].
Suraj Mall Mohta c.nd Co. v, A. V. Visvanatha Sastri and Anr. [1955]
I S.CR. 448; Unnichoyi and Ors v, State of Kera/a [19621
1, S.C.R.
946; The Edward Mills Co. Ltd, Beawar and Ors. v. The State of Ajmer
and Anr. [1955] I. S.C.R. 735; Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. v. The State of
A/mer [1955] 1 S.C.R. 752: A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India [1970) l
S.C.R. 457; Mis Bhaikusa Yamasa Kahatriya v. Sangamner Ako/a Ta uka
Bidi Kumgar Union [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 524; referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1617 of
1967.
Appeal from the judgment
and order dated September 18 ..
1967 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1417 of
1967 and Writ Petition No. 207 of 1967.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement
of the fundamental rights. .
A. K. Sen and R. Gopalakrislman, for the appellant (in C. A.
No. 1617 of 1967).
S. T. Desai, S. N. Prasad and R. B. Datar, for the petitioners
in W.P. No. 207 of 1967).
Niren De, Attorney-General, S. S. Javali and S. P. Nayar, for
respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (C.A. No. 1617 of 1967) and respondent
No. 1 (in W.P. No. 207 of 1967).
S. S. Khanduja, for respondent No. 2 (in W.P. No. 207 of
c
D
E
F
G
1%n.
H
R. Gopalakrishnan, for the intervener (in W.P. No. 207 of
1967).
A
B
c
D
E
F
CHANDRA BHAVAN v. MYSORE (Hegde, !.)
603
The Judgll!ent of the Court was delivered by
Hegde, J.
The above mentioned appeal by certificate as well
as the petition under Art. 3 2 of the Constitution raise identical
questions of law for decision. In both these proceedings the validity of the notification issued by the Government of Mysore in S.O.
1038 dated the 1st June 1967 fixing the minimum wages of different classes of employees in residential hotels and eating houses i"
the State of Mysore, under the provisions of the Minimum Wages
Act, 1948 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) is called into
question. The Civil Appeal arises from the decision of the High
Court of Mysore rejecting the various contentions advanced on
behalf of some of the hotel owners questioning the validity of the
impugned notification. The writ petition is filed by the All Mysore
Hotels Association, Bangalore and the Madras Woodlands Hotel
raising those very contentions.
The impugned notification was challenged on several grounds
before the High Court but in this Court only some of those grounds
were pressed. The grounds urged in this Court are :
(1) Section 5(1) of the Act is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution as it confers unguided and uncontrolled discretion on the
Government to follow either of the alternative procedures prescribed in els. (a) and (b) of that sub-section.
(2) The provisions of the Act are unconstitutional as they
confer arbitrary power without guidance to the Central and the
State Governments concerned to fix minimum rates of wages and
thus interfere with the freedom of trade guaranteed under Art.
19(1)(g) of our Constitution.
(3) It was incumbent on the Government to appoint a committee under s. 5 ( 1 )(a) of the Act to inquire into and advise it
in the matter of fixing minimum wages. Its failure to do so has
resulted in fixing minimum wages arbitrarily.
(4) Fixing of minimum wages under the provisions of the Act
being a quasi-judicial act, the Government's failure to observe the
principles of natural justice has vitiated its decision.
G
(5) It was not permissible for the Government to fix different
H
minimum :-vages in different industries.
(6) The divisio.i of the State into zones and fixing different
rates of minimum wages for different zones was impermissible
under the Act.
(7) The division of the State into zones was not done on any
rational basis and,
· L3Sup. CI./70-8
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 2 S.C.R.
(8) The valuation of the food to be provided to the employees
is unreasonably low and the same was done without the authority
of law.
The Act came to be enacted to give effect to the resolutions
passed by the minimum wages fixing Machinery Convention held
at Geneva in 1928. The relevant resolutions of the Convention
are embodied in Art. 223 to 228 of the International Labour Code.
Tbe object of these resolutions as stated in Art. 224 was to fix
minimum wages in industries "in which no arrangements exist for
the effective regulation of wages by collective agreements or otherwise and wages are exceptionally low". The central legislature enacted the Act in 1948 and it came into force on March 15, 1948.
The long title to the Act says that it is an Act for fixing minimum
rates of wages for certain employments.
The preamble to the.
Act says that "it is expedient to provide for fixing minimum rates
of wages in certain employments". Section 2 defines certain terms.
Jcction 3 empowers the appropriate government which expression
is defined in s. 2(b) to fix the minimum rates of wages payable to
the employees employed in an employment specified in P_art I or
in Part II of the Sch. and in any employment added to either part
in exercise of the powers granted under s. 27 of the Act. Cl. (b)
of s. 3 (2) empowers the 11ppropriate Government to review at such
intervals as it may think lit, such intrrvals not exceeding five years,
minimum rates of wages so fixed and revise the minimum rates,
if necessary. Sub-s. (3) of that section stipulates that in fixing or
revising minimum rates of wages under that section different minimum rates of wages may be fixed in different scheduled employment~ f.:ir different classes of work in the same scheduled employment for adults, adolescents, children and apprentices and for different localities.
Section 4 prescribes the different methods in
which the minimum rates of wages can be fi.11:ed.
Section S is
important for our present purpose. It reads thus :
"(1) In fixing minimum rates of wages '•1 respect of
any scheduled employment for the first time under this
Act or in revising minimum rates of wages so fixed, the
appropriate Government shall either-
(a) appoint as many committees and sub-committees as it considers necessary to hold enquiries and advise
it in respect of such fixation or revision, as the case may
be, or
(b) by notification in the Official Gazette, publish
its proposals for the information of persons likely to be
affected thereby and specify a date, not less than two
months from the date of the notification on which the
proposals will be taken into consideration.
A
B
c
D
.,
G
H
•
CHANDRA BHAVAN v. MYSORE (Hegde, J.)
605
A
(2) After considering the advice of the committee
or committees appointed under clause (a) of sub-section
(1) or as the case !!lay be, all representations received by
it before the date specified
in the notification under
clause (b) of that sub-section, the appropriate Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix
B
or, as the case may be, revise the minimum rates of
wages in respect <?f each scheduled employment, and
unless such notification otherwise provides, it shall come
into force on the expiry of three months from the date
of its issue :
Provided that where the appropriate Government ·
C
proposes to revise the minimum rates of wages by the
mode specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1), the appropriate Government shall consult the Advisory Board
also."
D
Section 7 says that for the purpose of co-ordinating the work
of committees and sub-committees appointed under s. 5 and for
advising it generally in the matter of fixing and revising the rates
of wages, the appropriate Government should appoint an Advisory Board. Section 8 provides for the appointment of a Central
Advisory Board.
Section 9 prescribes the composition of the
various committees and sub-committees under s. 5 and the Advisory Boards under ss. 7 and 8. Section 11 authorises the approE
priate Government to fix wages in kind under certain circumstances and to fix its value in terms of money.
Section 12
stipulates that the employer shall pay to every employee engaged in a scheduled employment the minimum rates of wages
fixed by the notification. The other provisions of the Act except
s. 27 are not relevant for our present purpose. Section 27 emF
G
powers the appropriate Government to acid to eitoor part of the
Sch. any employment in respect of which it is of opinion that :he
minimum rates of wages should be fixed under the Act.
The Sch. to the Act as it originally stood did not include resi7
dential hotels and eating houses but they were brought into part
I of the Sch. by the State Government on June 18, 1959 in exercise of its !'Owers under s. 27.
Tne State Government of Mysore fixed the minimum rates of
WBfCS to different categories of employees in residential hotels and
eating houses situate within the municipal limits of Bangalore,
Mysore, Hubli, Mangalore and Belgaum as well as in the area of
the Kolar Gold Fields Sanitary Board as per its notification pubH
lished on June 16, 1960. That notification was quashed by the.
High Court of Mysore on November 10, 1961, at the instance of
some of the proprietors of residential hotels and eating houses in
proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution on the s9le g~ound
606
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 2 S.C.R.
that as the notification in question applied only to certain parts of
the State and not to the whole of it, it was invalid. A fresh notification under s. 5(l)(b) of the Act containing certain proposals
wa:: issued by the State Government for fixing minimum wages
for different classes of employees in residential hotels and eating
houses, on December 9, 1964 but no further action was taken on
the basis of that notification.
On October 28, 1966, the State
Government after consulting the Mysore State Miniwum Wages
Advisory Board published in the Official Gazette fresh proposals
under s. 5 (1 )( b) for fixing minimum wages for different cate·
gories of employees in residential hotels and eating houses in the
State. The parties affected were ca!led upon to submit their representations regarding those proposals. Various representations
from the interested parties were received. Thereafter the Minister
for Labour summoned a meeting of the interested parties· on April
27, 1967 for considering those proposals. That meeting was
attended by the representatives of the employers as well as the
employees. It was also attended by the representatives of various
hotel owners' associations in the State. At the meeting the em·
ployers 'representatives pleaded that the minimum wages
pro·
posed to be fixed are excessive but the representatives of the employees' asserted that the proposed rates are low and that they
should be enhanced. After considering the written as well as the
oral representations made by the concerned parties, the impugned
notification was issued.
The minimum wages fixed under that
notification is somewhat higher than that proposed.
We have earlier referred to the circumstances under which the
Act came to be enacted as well as the objectives intended to be
achieved by the Act. In that context we may also refer to a pas• ..
age in the report of the Committee on Fair Wages appointed by
the Central Government.
In paragraph 8 of that report, it is
observed:
"The demand for the fixation of the minimum wage
arose, in the first instance, out of the clamour for the
eradication of the evils of "sweating". Thus in the early
days, the operation of the minimum wage legislation was
confined to employments which paid unduly low wages.
There has since been increasing demand for the fixation
of minimum wages so as to cover even non-sweated in·
dustries, particularly those in which labour is unorganised or is only weakly or~anised. The International Con·
vention of 1928 prescribes the s~tting up of minimum
wage-fixing machinery in industries in which "no arrangements exist for the effective regulation of wages by
collective agreement or otherwise and wages are exceptionally low". The Minimum Wages Act passed by the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
CHANDRA BHAVAN v. MYSORE (Hegde, J.)
607
Indian Legislature last year was found necessary on both
these grounds.
In foreign countries, particularly
Australia, Newzealand, the United States
of America and Canada,
where the national wealth is high, the iiving wage forms
the primary basis of the mi•1irnum wage. In these countries there is not much distinction between the two. The
I.I .. 0. monograph on the Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery contains the following passage on the subject :
"The bases specified in various laws include the living wage basis, and that of fixing minimum wages in any
trade in relation to the wages paid to workers in the
same trades in other districts or in relation to the wages
paid to workers of similar grade in other trades. There
is a third important basis, namely, the capacity of the
individual industry or of indastry in general, which,
though someti,mes not expressly mentioned in minimum
wage Jaws, must always be taken into account in practice ............ A close relation exists between them.
As a basis for wage-fixing it would be valueless to make
an estimate of a living wage beyond the capacity of industry to pay.
Here capacity of industry as a whole,
and not of each separate industry or branch is to be understood."
From this an? lysis of the bases of fixing of the minimum wage, it will be se~n that, as a rule, though the
living wage is the target, it has to be tempered, even in
advanced countries, by other considerations, particularly
the general level of 'Vages in other industries and the
capacity of industry to pay. This view has been acceptecl by the Bombay Textile Labour Inquiry Comn~ittee
which says that "the living wage basis affords an absolute
external standard for the determination of the minimum"
and that "where a living wage criterion has been used
in the giving of an awarcl or the fixing of a wage, the
decision has always been tempered by other considerations of a practical character."
In India, however, the level of the national income
is so low at presenf that it is generally accepted that the
country cannot afford to prescribe by law a minimum
wage which would correspond to the concept of the living
wage as described in the preceding
paragraphs.
What 1hen should be the level of minimum wages whicl!
can be sustained by the present stage of the country's
economy ? Most. employers and some Provincial Governments consider that the minimum wage can at pre-
608
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 2 S.C.R.
sent be only a bare subsistence wage. In fact, even one
important all-India organization of employees has suggested that "a minimum wage is that wage which is
sufficient to cover the bare physical needs of a worker
and his family".
Many others, however, who have replied to our questionnaire,
consider that a minimum
wage should also provide for some other essential requirements such as a minimum of education, medical
facilities and other amenities. We consider that a minimum wage must provide not merely for the bare sustenance of life but for the preservation of the efficiency
of the worker.
For this purpose, the minimum wage
must also provide for some measure of education, medi·
cal requirements and amenities."
'
It is now convenient to examine the various contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant and the petitioners. It was contended that s. 5(1) of the Act is violative of Art. 14 of the Con·
stitution as it confers unguided and uncontrolled discretion to the
Government to follow either of the two alternative procedures prescribed in that section in the matter of fixing minimum wages. It
was urged that under cl. (a) of s. 5(1) the appropriate Government
is required to appoint a committee representing all interests to
hold a detailed enquiry regarding the concerned employment before
advising the Government in the matter of fixing minimum wages
but under cl. (b) of s. 5(1) all that the appropriate Government
need do is to publish by notificaiion in the Official Gazette its proposals for the information of the persons likely to be affected by
those proposals and specify a date not less than two months from
the date of the notification on which the proposals will be taken
into consideration. It was urged that if the procedure prescribed
in s. 5(1) (a) is adopted it would be advantageous to the employers
because in the committee to be appointed, there will be the representatives of the employers who know the difficulties of thr employers and hence are in a position to acquaint their colleagues about
the same but if the procC<lure prescribed ins. 5(1)(b) is followed, the
affected parties can only submit their written representations followed by some nominal oral representation in a crowded meeting.
While dealing with that topic, assistance was sought from the rule
laid down by this Court in Sura/ Mall Mohta and Co. v. A. v.
Visvanatha Sastri and anr. ( 1) and the other decisiODS of thl1 Court
reiterating that rule. It is true that this Court has tlnnly ruled
that the procedural inequality, if real and substantial is also wit!iln
the vice of Art. 14. But then, before a power can be held to be
bad the same should be an unguided and unregulated one. But
if a power is given to an authority to have recourse to different pro·
11) [19SSl I S. C. R. 448.
A
B
c
D
:r.
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
CHANDRA BHAVAN v. MYSORE (Hegde, J.)
609
cedur~s under different circumstances, that power cannot be considered as an arbitrary power. It must also be remembered that
power under s. 5(1) is given to the State Government and not to
any petty official.
The State Government can be trusted to exercise that power to further the purposes of the Act. It is not the
law that the guidance for the exercise of a power sho'.lld be gatherable from one of the provisions in the Act. It can be gathered from
the circumstances th~t led to the enactment of the law in question i.e. the mischief that was intended to be remedied, the pream·
ble to the Act or even from the scheme of the Act.
We have earlier noticed the circumstances under which the Act
came to be enacted. Its main object is to prevent sweated Jabour
as well as exploitation of unorganised labour. It proceeds on the
basis that it ls the duty of the State to sec that at least minimum
wages are paid to the employees irrespective of the capacity of
the industry or unit to pay the same. The mandate of Art. 43 of
the Constitution is that the Staw should endeavour to secure by
suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way,
to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a living
wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and
full enjoyment of Jiesure and social and cultural opportunitici;.
The fixing of minimum wages is just the first step in that direction.
In course of time the State has to take many more steps to implement that mandate. As seen earlier that resolutions of the Geneva
Convention of 1928, which had been accepted by this country
called upon the covenanting States to fut minimum wages for the
employe.es in employments where the labour is unorganized or
where the wages paid are low.
Minimum wage does not mean
wage just sufficient for bare sustenance. At present the concep·
hon of a minimum wage "is a wage which is somewhat interme·
diate to a wage which is just SJfficient for bare sustenance and a
fair wage. That concept includes not only the wage sufficient to
meet the bare sustenance of an employee and his family, it also in·
eludes expenses necessary for his other primary needs such
as
medical expenses, expenses to meet some education for his children, in some cases transport charges etc.-see U. Unnichoyi and
Ors. v. State of Kera/a('). The concept of minimum wage is likely
t:i undergo a change with the growth of our economy, and with
the change in the standard of living. It is not a static concept. Its
concomitants must necessarily increase with '.he progress of the
society. It is likely to differ from place to plac~ and from industry
to industry.
That is "clear from the provisions of the Act itself
and is inherent in the very concept. That being the case it is absolutely impossible for the legislature to undertake the task of futing minimum wages in respect of any industry much less in respect
of an employment.
That process must necessarily be left to the
(I) [1962] I, SC.R.
946.
610
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 2 S.C.R.
Government. Before minimum wages in any employment can be
fixed it will be necessary to collect considerable data. That cannot
be done by the legislature. It can be best done by the Government.
The legislature has determined the legislative policy and formulated
the same as a binding rule of conduct. The legislative policy is
enumerated with sufficient clearness. The Govr·nment is merely
charged with the duty of implementing that poiicy.
There is no
basis for saying that the legislature had abdicated any of its legislative functions. The legislature has prescribed two different procedures for collecting the necessary data, one contained in s.5(l)(a)
and the other in s. 5(I)(b). In either case it is merely a procedure for gathering the necessary information. The Government is
not bound by the advice given by the committee appointed under
s. 5(l)(a).
Discretion to select one of the two procedures prescribed for collecting the data is advisedly left to the Government.
In the case of a particular employment, the Government may have
sufficient data in its possession tQ enable it to formulate proposals
under s. 5 ( l)(b). Therefore it may not be necessary for it to constitute a committee to tender advice to it but in the case of another
employment it may not be in possession of sufficient data. Therefore it might be necessary for it to constitute a committee to collect
the data and tender its advice. If the Government is satisfied that
it has enough material before it to enable it to proceed .under s.
5 ( 1) (b) it can very .vell do so. Which procedure should be adopted
in any particular employment depends on the nature of the employment and the information the Government has in its possession
about that employment. Hence the powersi conferred on the Government cannot be considered as either unguided or arbitrary. In
the instant case as seen earlier the question of fixing wages for the
various categories of employees in residential hotels and eating
houses was before the Gover11ment from 1960 and the Government had taken various steps in that regard. It is reasonable to
assume that by the time the Government published the proposals
in pursuance of which the impugned notification was issued it had
before it adequate material on the basis of which it could formi1late its proposals.
Before publishing those. proposals, the Government had consulted the advisory committee constituted under
s. 7.
Under those circumstances we are unable to accede to the
contention that either the power conferred under s. 5(1) is an arbitrary power or that the same had been arbitrarily exercised.
The validity of some of the provisions .in the Act including
s. 5 came up for consideration by this Court in The Edward Mills
Co. Ltd., Beawar and Ors. v. The State of Ajmer and Anr.(1 ) and
in Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. v. The State of Ajmer(2 ). In the former case, it was observed that the legislative policy is apparent on
(1). [1955] I S.C.R. 735.
(2).
[1955] l S.C.R. 752.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
CHANDRA BHAVAN v. MYSORE (Hegde, J.)
611
the face of the enactment. What it aims at is the statutory fixation
of the minimum wages with a view to obviate the chances of exploitation of labour. It is to carry out the purpose of the enactment that power has been given to the appropriate Government to
decide with reference to local conditions whether it is desirable
that minimum wage should be fixed in regard to a particular trade
or industry. In the latter case, the validity of s. 5 was assailed on
the ground that it is violative of Art. 19( 1) (g). That challenge
was negatived by this Court. Dealing with s. 5 ( 1) this what the
Court observed therein :
"As regards the procedure for the fixing of minimum
wages, the "appropriate Government" has undoubtedly
been given very large powers.
But it has to take into
consideration, before fixing wages, the advice of the
committee if one is appointed, or the representations on
his proposals made by persons who are likely to be affected thereby. Consultation with advisory bodies has been
made obligatory on all occasions of revision of minimum
wages, and section 8 of the Act provides for the appointment of a Central Advisory Board for the purpose of
advising the Central as well as the State Government
both in the matter of fixing and revision of minimum
wages. Such Central Advisory body is to act also as a
co-ordinating agent for co-ordinating jhe work of the
different advisory bodies. In the committees or the advisory bodies the employers and the employees have an
equal number of representatives and there are certain
independent members besides them who are expected
to take a fair and impartial view of the matter. These
provisions, in our opinion, constitute an adequate safeguard against any hasty or capricious decision by the
"appropriate Government".
Jn suitable cases the "appropriate Government" has also been given the power of
granting exemptions from the operation of the provisions
of this Act."
It is true that in those cases the validity of s. 5 was not challenged as being ultra vires Art. 14 of the Constitution. But the
observations quoted above afford an answer to the plea that the
power granted to the Government is an arbitrary power.
It was comp]ained that an examination of the various proposals
made by the Government ever since 1960 would clearly show that
the Government was out to fix fair wages and not minimum wages.
From stage to stage it has gone on proposing higher and hi~her
wages and under the impugned notification the wages fixed are
higher than those proposed. We were told that if the prescribed
612
SUPREME COURT !UlPORTS
[! 970]2 s.c.R.
rates are sustained, the hotel industry would be crippled and the
smaller units in that industry will be driven out of the trade.
Our attention was not drawn to any material on record to show
that the minimum wages fixed are basically wrong.
Prima facie
they appear to be reasonable. ''le are not convinced that the rates
prescribed would adversely affect the industry 01 even .i small unit
therein. If they do, then the industry or the unit as the case may
be has no right to exist. Freedom of trade does not mean freedom
to exploit. The provisions of the Constitution are not erected as
the barriers to progress. They provide a plan for orderly progress
towards the social order contemplated by the preamble to the
Constitution.
They do not permit any kind of slavery, social,
economic or political. It is a fallacy to think that under our Constitution there are only rights and no duties.
While rights conferred under Part III are fundamental, the directives given under
Part IV are fundamental in the governance of the country. We
see no conflict on the whole between the provisions contained in
Part III and Part IV. They are complementary and supplementary to each other. The provisions of Part IV enable the legislatures and the Government to impose various duties on the citizens.
The provisions therein are deliberately made elastic because the
duties to be imposed on the citizens depend on the extent to which
the 'irective principles are implemented.
The mandate of the
Comtitution is to build a welfare society in which justice social,
economical and political shall inform all institutions of our national
lite. The hopes and aspirations aroused by the Constitution will
be belied if the minimum needs of the Jowest of our citizens are not
met.
It was urged on behalf of the hotel owners that the power conferred to fix the minimum wage on the appropriate Government
under s. 5(1) is a quasi-judicial power and in exercising that power,
it was incumbent on the appropriate Government to observe the
principles of natural justice. The Government having failed to
observe those principles, the fixation of wages made is liable to be
struck down. It is unnecessary for our present purpose to go into
the que.stion whether the power given under the Act to fix minimum wages is a quasi-judicial power or an administrative power.
As observed by this Court in A. K. Kraipak v. Union ?f India('),
the dividing line between an administrative power and quasi-judicial power is quite thin and is being gradually obliterated. It is
further observed therein that principles of natural justice apply to
the exercise of the administrative powers as well. But those principles are not embodied rules.
What particular rule of natural
justice, if any, should apply to a given case must depend to a
(I) [19701 I S. C. 457.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
'
H
CHANDRA BHAVAN v. MYSORE (Hegde, J.)
613
great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the tribunal or body of persons appointed for the purpose.
Taking into consideration the provisions of the Act, the objective behind the Act, the purposes intended to be achieved and the
high authority on whom the power is conferred, we have no doubt
that the procedure adopt~d wa~ adequate and effective. We have
equally no doubt that reasonable opportunity had been given to
all the concerned parties to represent their case. We are unable to
agree that the impugned order is vitiated because of the Government's failure to constitute a committee under s. 5(l)(a). We .ice
no substance in the contention that the Government is not competent to enhance the rate of wages mentioned in the proposals
published. If it has power to reduce those rates, as desired by the
employers,
it necessarily follows that it has power to enhance
them. There is no merit in the contention that the Government
must go on publishing proposals after proposals until a stage is
reached where no change whatsoever is necessary to be made in
the last proposal made.
The contention that the Government has no power to fix different minimum wages for different industries or in different localities
is no more available in view of the decision of this Court in M/s.
Bhaikusa Y amasa Kahatriya v. Sangamner A kola Taluka Bidi
X.amgar Union('). The fixation of minimum wages depend on the
prevailing economic· conditions, the ccst of living in a place, the
nature of the work to be performed and the conditions in which
the work is performed. The contention that it was imper.nissible
for the Government to divide the State into several zones is opposed
to s. 3(3) as well as to the scheme of the Act.
On the basis of the material before us we are unable to say
that the various zones had not been made on any rational basis.
The Government. has given good reasims in support of the steps
taken by it. Bangalore is the capital of the State and Mangalore
is a major port. Therefore they may stand on a different footing.
In matter like the preparation of zones we have to trust the State
Government unless it is shown that collateral considerations have
influenced its decision.
No such plea was taken.