# MINISTRY OF LABOUR & REHABILITATION & ANOTllER v. TIFFIN'S BARYTES ASBESTOS & PAINTS LTD. & ANR

- **Citation:** [1985] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 302
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1985-07-16
- **Bench:** O.Chinnappa Reddy, v.BALAKRISHNA ERADI, v.KHALID
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ministry-of-labour-rehabilitation-anotller-v-tiffin-s-barytes-asbestos-paints-9200
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Minimum Wages Act 1948, ss. 5(a) (9) and 9 - Appointment of
Conmdttee to advise the Government on fixation of minimum wages
in certain mines - Government officials and persons not belonging
to the concerned mines appointed as members Government officials,
when 'independent persons' as contemplated by s. 9.
Whether it
C
is their duty to implement the provisions of the Act and the
Goverrunent being not an employet - Employers
representatives in
the conmdttee -
Whether should be engaged for profit in the
particular employment.
After considering the advice of the Comn!.ttee, appointed
under ss.5(l)(a) and 9 of the Minimum Wages Act 1948, the Govern'-
0
ment of India by a Notification issued under the Act fixed the
minimum rates of wages payable to certain categories of employees
in the scheduled employment in certain mines •
The mine-owners
challenged the notification under Article 226 of the Constitution
and the same was quashed by the High Court on the ground that the
Comn!.ttee on whose advice the Notification was llased was improE
perly constituted for two reasons: (l) that the Chief Labour
Comnissioner (Central) New Delhi and Director, Labour Bureau,
Simla, were Government employees in the Labour Department and
were, therefore, not truly 'independent' so as to be eligible to
be appointed to the Conmdttee constituted under ss.5 and 9 of the
Act and (2) that the so-called representatives of the employers
F
on the Conmdttee were not representatives of the aamed mining
industries and were, therefore, ineligible to be appointed to the
Comnittee to represent the employers .of the particular scheduled
employments.
G
H
Allowing the appeal of the Union of India,
HELD: l. The Government employees, who are entrusted with
the task of implementing the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act
1948, cannot, for that reason, be dubbed as interested and not
independant persons.
In a case where the Government itself is
not an employer there is no justification for holding that
Government employees become 'interested persons' contemplated by
MINISTRY OF LABOUR v. TIFFIN' S BARYTES
303
s. 9 of the Act are persons who belong neither to the category of
employers nor to the category of employees and there is no reason
to think that Government employees are' excluded•
The term
'independent persons', is uaed in the sect.ion in contradistinction to the words 'persons representing employers and employees
in the scheduled employments'. [305 F-ti, 306 A-BJ
liaJ:Ottamdas "· GcNaribr & Ors. [1961) (1) LLJ
442; lohinoor Pictures (Pvt.) Ud. v. State of West Bengal [1961) (2) LLJ
741 and Bansi Lal S. Patel v. State of Andbra Pradesh [1965]
1
LLJ 28 overruled.
Jaswaot BaJ. v. State of Punjab A.l.R.. 1958 Punjab 425 and
Digv.1.jays:l.ngbji Salt Works Ud. v. State of Gujarat All 1971
Gujarat 14 approved.
State of llajastban v. Harl Baa Batlmani & Om. [ 1976]
( 1)
SCR 641 not applicable.
'2. The persons appointed to the Colllllittee to represent the
employers were eligible t~ be appointed to the committee. The
scheduled employments in the instant case are employment in
Gypsum, Barytes, Bauxite and Manganese mines. For the purpose of
appointing
a
Colllllitttee to represent the employers in the
scheduled employment, U
Wiili not necessary that the persons
appointed should be engaged for prof it in the particular employment. lt is enough if a nexus exists between the persons so
appointed to represent the·employers in the particular employment
and the . particular employment concerned. There waa no material
before the High Court nor was the High Court in s position to say
that the persons appointed to the Colllllittee to represent
the
employers were entirely unconnected with or ignorant of the
particular employment. lt is not understood how by merely looking
at their nsmes and the position occupied by them, the High Court
waa able to say that they were incompetent to represent the
employers in the particular employments. The representatives of
the employers consisted of C

## Text

302
A
MINISTRY OF LABOUR & REHABILITATION & ANOTllER.
v.
TIFFIN'S BARYTES ASBESTOS & PAINTS LTD. & ANR.
JULY 16, 1985
B
(O.CHINNAPPA REDDY, v.BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND v.KHALID, JJ.)
Minimum Wages Act 1948, ss. 5(a) (9) and 9 - Appointment of
Conmdttee to advise the Government on fixation of minimum wages
in certain mines - Government officials and persons not belonging
to the concerned mines appointed as members Government officials,
when 'independent persons' as contemplated by s. 9.
Whether it
C
is their duty to implement the provisions of the Act and the
Goverrunent being not an employet - Employers
representatives in
the conmdttee -
Whether should be engaged for profit in the
particular employment.
After considering the advice of the Comn!.ttee, appointed
under ss.5(l)(a) and 9 of the Minimum Wages Act 1948, the Govern'-
0
ment of India by a Notification issued under the Act fixed the
minimum rates of wages payable to certain categories of employees
in the scheduled employment in certain mines •
The mine-owners
challenged the notification under Article 226 of the Constitution
and the same was quashed by the High Court on the ground that the
Comn!.ttee on whose advice the Notification was llased was improE
perly constituted for two reasons: (l) that the Chief Labour
Comnissioner (Central) New Delhi and Director, Labour Bureau,
Simla, were Government employees in the Labour Department and
were, therefore, not truly 'independent' so as to be eligible to
be appointed to the Conmdttee constituted under ss.5 and 9 of the
Act and (2) that the so-called representatives of the employers
F
on the Conmdttee were not representatives of the aamed mining
industries and were, therefore, ineligible to be appointed to the
Comnittee to represent the employers .of the particular scheduled
employments.
G
H
Allowing the appeal of the Union of India,
HELD: l. The Government employees, who are entrusted with
the task of implementing the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act
1948, cannot, for that reason, be dubbed as interested and not
independant persons.
In a case where the Government itself is
not an employer there is no justification for holding that
Government employees become 'interested persons' contemplated by
MINISTRY OF LABOUR v. TIFFIN' S BARYTES
303
s. 9 of the Act are persons who belong neither to the category of
employers nor to the category of employees and there is no reason
to think that Government employees are' excluded•
The term
'independent persons', is uaed in the sect.ion in contradistinction to the words 'persons representing employers and employees
in the scheduled employments'. [305 F-ti, 306 A-BJ
liaJ:Ottamdas "· GcNaribr & Ors. [1961) (1) LLJ
442; lohinoor Pictures (Pvt.) Ud. v. State of West Bengal [1961) (2) LLJ
741 and Bansi Lal S. Patel v. State of Andbra Pradesh [1965]
1
LLJ 28 overruled.
Jaswaot BaJ. v. State of Punjab A.l.R.. 1958 Punjab 425 and
Digv.1.jays:l.ngbji Salt Works Ud. v. State of Gujarat All 1971
Gujarat 14 approved.
State of llajastban v. Harl Baa Batlmani & Om. [ 1976]
( 1)
SCR 641 not applicable.
'2. The persons appointed to the Colllllittee to represent the
employers were eligible t~ be appointed to the committee. The
scheduled employments in the instant case are employment in
Gypsum, Barytes, Bauxite and Manganese mines. For the purpose of
appointing
a
Colllllitttee to represent the employers in the
scheduled employment, U
Wiili not necessary that the persons
appointed should be engaged for prof it in the particular employment. lt is enough if a nexus exists between the persons so
appointed to represent the·employers in the particular employment
and the . particular employment concerned. There waa no material
before the High Court nor was the High Court in s position to say
that the persons appointed to the Colllllittee to represent
the
employers were entirely unconnected with or ignorant of the
particular employment. lt is not understood how by merely looking
at their nsmes and the position occupied by them, the High Court
waa able to say that they were incompetent to represent the
employers in the particular employments. The representatives of
the employers consisted of Controller. of , the Indian Bureau. of
Mines, Secretary General of the Federation of the Indian Mining
Industries, Pre8.ident of Mysore State Mine Owners Associiltion,
etc. etc. All these persons are intimately connected with the
mining industry and it has not been shown that they were unconnected with or ignorant of the particular scheduled employments
in mines. lt is impossible to uphold the view of the .High Court.
[306 D-H, 306 A-E]
IJunlpalr Lal a • .,,,•kkar v. State of Gujarat [1980]
(4) sec
329 not applicable.
·
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
304
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.
A
3. Notification8 fixing minimum ages should not be lightly
ll
c
D
E
interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution except on
the most substantial grounds. {307 G]
CIVIL APPELLA.TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No •. 589 of
1972.
From the Judgment and Order datd 8. 7 .1971 of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in w.p, No. 3980 of 1969.
AND
Civil Appeals Nos 541-546 of 1973
From the Judgment. and Order dated 23.8.1971 of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in w.p, Nos. 1526,167.4,3198,3199,3200 & 3210
of 1970.
G. Das, P.P, Singh, R.N.Poddar, for the Appellants in C.A.
No. 589(N) of 1978.
,,.
Respondent No.
1. in person. (not present) in C.A. No;
589(N) of 1972.
R.N. Poddar and Mrs. Indira Sawhney for the Appellants in
C.A. Nos. 541-546 of 1972.
Dr. Anand Prakash, Naunit Lal, Kailash Vasdev and .Mrs.
Vinod Arya for the Respondents in C.A. Nos. 541-546 of 1972.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
CHlNNAPPA REDDY, J,
On October 16, 1968 the Government of
I~dia, Ministry of labour, Employment and Rehabilitation, issued
a notification, in exercise of their powers under section 5(1)
{a) and 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, appointing a Committee "to
hold enquiries and advise the Central Government regarding -
G
(a) the fiX"ation of minimuni rates of wages for the first time
under the said Act , and
(b) the revision of minimum rates of wages already fixed by the
Central Government under the said Act,"
H
in respect of the Employment in Manganese, Gypsum, Berytes and
Bauxite Mines,
Shri D. Venkatachalam, Chief Labour Commissioner
'
MINISTRY OF LABOUR v. TIFFIN 1 S BAllYTES [ CHINNAPPA REDDY, J • I 305
(Central), .New Delhi and Shri K.K.Bhatia, Director, Labour
A
Bureau, Simla were appointed as independent members of the
Committee while (i) Shri K.S.Mshaptra, Controller ·of Indian
Bureau of
Mines, Nagpur,
(11) Shri Dev Coomer Singhi, The
Jhagrakhand Collieries Private Ltd., 14/4, Gariaghat Road,
Calcutta-19, (iii) Dr. S.K.Das Gupta, Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd.,
1, Middleton Street, Calcutta-16 (iv) Shri T.R. Goenka, Honorary
B
Secretary General, Federation of Indian Mining Industries, 7,
N.D.s.E. Part I, New Delhi-3 and (v) Mr. s.G.A. Naidu, President
of Mysore State Mine oWners' Association, Bangalore, were appointed as representatives of the employers.
Five other gentlemen
were appointed as members of the Committee to represent the
employees.
Thereafter, on May 19, 1969, after considering the
C
advice of the Committee, the Goverranent of India ,issued a notification fixing mininrum rates of wages payable to certain categories of employee& in the scheduled employment in Barytes,
Bawd. te, Manganese and Gypsum Mina a. The notification fixing
minimum wages was questioned by several owners of mines in writ
petitions filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The notifiD
cation was quashed by the High Court of Andhra Pradeah on the
ground that the Committee on whose advice it was based was improperly constituted for two reasons : (l)'.,Shri Venkatachalam and
Shri K.K. Bhatia were Government employees in the LSbour Department and were, therefore, not truly "independent' so as to be
eligible to be appointed to the Committee constituted under
sections 5 and 9 of the Minimum Wages Act and; (2) The so called
E
representatives •of the employers on the Conmittee as appointed
were not representatives of the Barytes, Bauxite, Manganese and
Gypsum mining industries and they were therefore ineligible. to be
appointed to the Committee to represent the employers of the
particular scheduled employments.
·
We are afraid, lfe are unable to subscribe to the
view
taken by the High Court,
In our opinion, Governmen.t employees,
who are entrusted with the task of implementina the provisions of
the Minimum Wages Act, cannot; for that rea1on, be dubbed as
interested and not independent persons. It may be that in a case
F
where the -Government itself is the employer in the particu}ar
G
scheduled employment, it may be possible to urge that Government
employees are not independent persons (we express no opinion on
that) but in a case where the Government itself is not an employer, we do not see any justification for holding that Government
employees who are interested in the implementation of the Minimum
Wages Act, for that reason only, become 'interested persons' and
H
cease to be independent.
The 'independent persons' contemplated
by s.9 of the Act are persons who belong neither to the category
306
SUPL<EME COURT REPORTS
[1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R •
•..
A
of employers nor to the category of employees, and there is no
reason to think that Government employees whose task is merely to
implement Parliamentary Legislation made pursuant to Directive
Principles of State Policy and the State's social obligations in
that direction are excluded.
The term! 'independent persons', it
must be eqiphasised~ is used in the section in contra distinction
b
to, the words' per~ons representing employers and employees in the
scheduled employments'.
We disagree with the view expressed by
the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Narottamdas v. Gowarikar & Ors.
[i961] 1 L.L.J. 442 and Calcutta High Court in Kohiooor Pictures
(Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [1961] 2 L.L.J. 141 and the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bansi Lal S. Patel v. State of
Andhra Pradesh [1965] 1 L.L.J. 28. We agree with the view taken
C
by the Punjab High Court in. Jaswant Bai v. State. of Punjab
A.I.R. 1958 Punjab 425 and the Gujarat High Court in
the
Digvijaysiogji. Salt Works Ltd. v. State of Gujarat A.I.R. 1971
Gujarat 14. The decision of this Court in State of Rajastban v.
Hari Ram Nathwani & Ors. [1976] 1 s.c.R. 641 does not assist
either party.
'
D
There is equally no substance in the other contention which
found favour with the High Court, damely, that the persons
appointed to the Committee to represent the employers were ineligible to be appointed to the Committee as they did not represent
employers in the.particular scheduled employment.
The scheduled
employments with which we are· concerned a~e emplo:Yment in Gypsum
t
mines, employment in -Barytes mines, employment in Bauxite mines
and employment in manganese mines.
It is not explained why the
persons appointed to the Committee to represent the employers are
ineligible to represent employers in the scheduled employments.
The High Court merely says "on a perusal of the names of the
employers' representatives, we find that none of the~ can be said
'F
to be the representatives of the Barytes mines.
When the minimum
wages of the categories of employees are to be fixed in respect
of Barytes mines, there is no point in appointing the representatives of other employments.
The Government in its counter has
not stated that any of the employers' ~epresentatives, who have
been nominated to the Corrnnittee, are the representatives of the
G
Barytes. mines.
The learned counsel appearing for the Central
Government also has not been able to point out whether any one of
those nominees of the Government as employers' representatives
really represent the.Barytes mines or has got expert knowledge of
the· employers and their working conditions in the scheduled
employments of Barytes mines. We, therefore, hold that the compoH
sition of the Committee is defective in respect of the nominations of the employers representatives.
This is sufficient to
j•
MINISTRY OF LABOUR v. TIFFIN'S BARYTES [CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.] 307
quash the notification which is based upon the advice of such a
defectively and irregularly constituted Committee."
We
are
afraid that the approach of the High Ccurt was entirely wrong·
For the purpose of appointing the Committee to represent the
employers in a scheduled employment, it was not necessary that
the person
appoint~d should be engaged for profit in the
particular employment. It is enough if a. nexus exists between
the persons so appointed to represent the employers in the particula·r employment and the particular employment concerned.
For
example, it may be absurd to appoint persons engaged in the newspaper industry to a Committee
to represent employers concerned
in the employment of Barytes mines or Bauxite mines.
The case
before us is not one of that nature at all.
There was no
material before the High Court nor was the High Court in a position to say that the persons appointed to the Committee to
represent the. employers were entirely unconnected with or igno~
rant of the particular employments.
We fail to understand how by
merely looking at their names and the positions occupied by them,
the High Court was able to say that they were incompetent
to
represent the employers in the particular employments.
The first
of them was the -Controller of the Indian ~ureau of.Mines, another
was the 81.cretary General of the Federation of Indian Mining
Industries and yet another was the President of the Mysore State
Mine OWners' Assoc;iation. All of them are intimetely connected
with the mining industry and it has not been shown that they are
unconnected ~ith or ignorant of the particular scheduled employments in mines.
We find it impossib~e to uphold the view of the.
High Court.
The decision of this Court in Champak Lal H. 'lbakkar
v. State of Gujarat [1980] 4 s.c.C.329, is of no assistance whatever.
In the circumstances ."we allow the appeals, set aside the
judgment of the High Court and dismiss the Writ Petitions filed
in the High Court.
We also wish to emphasise that notifications
fixing minimum wages are not to" be lightly interfered with under
Article 226 of the Constitution_ on the ground of some irregularities in the
Constitution of the Connnittee or in the procedure
adopted by
the Committee. It must
be
remembered that the
Connnittee acts only as a reconnnendatory. body and the final notification fixing minimum wages has to be ~de by the Government.
Notification fixing minimum wages, in. a country where wages are
already minimum should not be interfered with under Article 226
of the Constitution except on the most substantial of grounds.
The legislation j.s a social welfare legislation undertaken
to
further the Directive Principles of btate Policy and action taken
pursuant to it cannot be struck down on mere technicalities.
A.P,J,
Appeals allowed.
A
B
c
D
E
F