# The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Naraycina - **Citation:** [1976] 1 S.C.R. 641 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1975-09-03 - **Bench:** A. Alagiriswami, Goswami, N. L. Untwalia - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-v-naraycina-6651 - **Pages:** 7 ## Headnote 1'. only' that of the Advi~ory Board. Since th:: procedure was under s. 5 ( 1) (a) it was not n1andatory for Government to take ~he opinlon of the Advisory Boa!·d at all. Therefore, the impugned notification and the proce::::ding<:i pursuant to it cJ.nnot be qua:':.h1:llr April, 1959,'the State Government in the first instance appointed a Committee consisting of five members on the 17th May, 1962. The constitution of the F G H A • B c f D E F • G .. H RAJASTHA~ V, HAR! RAM (Untwalia, !.) 643 Committee was, however, revised by notification dated the 26th November, 1962. This committee consisted of five members, two rcpresentati\'es of the employers, two representatives of the employees and one, Professor K. S. Mathur, Head of the Department of Economics Degree College, Ajmer. The last was tak~n as an independent member of the committee. It submitted its report to the Government. The matter was referred by the Government to the Advisory Board wastituted under section 9 of the Act. . It appears that a Sub-committee was appointcl\ by the Advisory Board to go into the matter further and to consider the report of the Wage Committee appointed earlier by the Government on the 26th November, 1962. In the Sub-committee were taken some persons who were not members of the Advisory Bonrd. The Sub-committee also submitted its report to the Advisory Board which consisted of 21 members, 8 employers' representatives, 8 employees' rcprcsrntatives and 5 Government officers appointed in the category of independent members. The proceedings of the Buard or revising the same as the case may be. Of course, the Government is expected, particulady in the present .deniocratic set up, to take that advice seriously into consideration and act on it but it is not bound to do so. The language of s. ~ does not contain any indication whatsoever that persons in the employment of the Government would be excluded from the category of independent persons. These words have essentially been employed in contradistinction to representatives of employers and employees. In other words, apart from the representatives of employers and employees there should be persons who should be independent of them. It does not follow that persons in the service or employ of the Government were meant to be excluded and they cannot be regarded as. independent persons vis-a-vis the representatives of the employers and employees. Apart from this the presence of high Government officials who may have actnal working knowledge· about the problems of employers and employees can afford a. good deal of guidance and assistance in formulating the advice which is to be tendered under S. 9 to the appropriate Government. It may be that in certain circumstances such persons who are in the service of the Government may cease to have an independent character if the question arise of fixation of minimum wages in a scheduled employment in which the appropriate Government is directly interested. It would, therefore, depend upon the facts of each particular case whether the persons who have been appointed from out of the class of independent persons can be regarded as independent or not. But the mere fact that they happen to be Government officials or Government servants will not divest them of the character of independent persons. We are not impres- . sed with the reasoning adopted that a Government official will have ·a bias or that he may favour the policy which the appropriate Government may be inclined to adopt because when he is a member of an advisory committee or board he is expected to give an impartial and independent advice and not merely carry out what the Government may be inclined to do. Gov·ernment officials. are responsible persons and it cannot be said that they are not capable of taking a detached and impartial vi~." The learned Acting Chief Justice of the High Court considered many of such decisions of the High Courts in his judgment and posed " question G "Suppose, the Government is an employer in the particular scheduled employment for which wages are sought to be fixed under the Act. Could it be postulated in such a case that art officer of the Government can be property appointed as an 'independent' person on any of the statutory bodies in question?" An answer in the negative was given. He then said "I need hardly add in this connection that if the Government be not an employer in any of the scheduled employments, there H would be no objection to the Government officers of the requisite calibre and experience being appointed as independent persons within the meaning of the section" .. But thinking that in the list of the scheduled employment are included "employ1U.ents such as public motor transport,.· . 6 46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1976] 1 S.C.ll. .and construction and maintenance of roads and building operations and A may be, for aught we know, in certain other employments also" in which the State Government is an employer and the Advisory Board constituted is meant for advising the Government in those employments also he held the constitution of the Advisory Board to be bad. In the extract which we have given above from the decision of this Court a sentence is to be found resembling the line of thinking of the learned Acting Chief Justice. This Court has said "It may be that in certain ll circumstances such persons who are in the service of the Government may cease to have an independent character if the question arises of :fixation of minimum wages in a scheduled employment in which the appropriate Goverrn)lent is directly interested" The question as to whether in such a situation a Government officer appointed on the Board or a Committee can be said to be independent member or not will have to be cautiously considered when an appropriate occasion arises for C the same. After all, even in such cases the final authority fixing or revising the minimum wages in a scheduled employment is the Government. Government officers can undoubtedly come on the Board or the Committee as representatives of the employers. Whether in such a situation more Government servants can come in the category of th" independent members is a question which is open to serious debate and doubt. But in the instant case on the authority of this Court it is clear D that the constitution of either the Wage Committee or the Advisory Board \Vas not bad, as the Government was not an employer in the J\.1ica Mines in respect of which employment only minimum wages were fixed by revision in the notification dated the 31st July, 1965. No procedure has been prescribed in the Act as to the method E which the Advisory Board is to adopt before making its recommendations to the State Government. It can devise its own procedure and collect some informations by appointment of a sub-committee consisting only of some of its members as was the case in the decision of the Bombay High Court in Gulanwhamed Tarasaheb, a Bidi Factory by its proprietors Shamrao and others v. Stiate of Bombay and others(11 ). But surely the Advisory Board has no power to appoint a . rival sub1 committee to the _one appointed by the Government and take in such subcommittee persons who are not members of the Board, as was done in this case. There is, therefore, no doubt that the Advisory Board committed an irregularity in taking into consideration the report of the sub-committee invalidly appointed by it. Does it necessarily follow from this that the impugned notification dated 31-7-1965 based upon the report of the Advisory Board which in its turn had taken into consideraG tion not only the report of the Committee appointed by the Government but also that of the sub-committee appointed by the Board is bad? 'On a careful consideration of the matter we give our answer in the negative. The irregularity, even characterising it as an illegality, committed by the Advisory Board in taking into consideration the report of the &ub-committee was not such as to nullify its recommendation contained in its report, or, in any event, the final decision of the Government conH tained in the impugned notification. It must be remembered that the procedure followed in this case was the one provided in section 5 ( 1) . 1_1}A!.R. i962lfombay 97. • 1 f • .. t A ... B f • RAJASTHAN V, HAR! RAM (Untwalia, J,) 647 (a) in which case it was not mandatory for the Government to take the opinion of the Advisory• Board. After all, the recommendations made by the Board even on consideration of the report of the Sub-committee along with that of the Committee was the advice of the Board. The · Government did accept it but accepted it after some modification. ln such a situation we do not think that the notification dated 31-7-1965 deserves invalidation. It follows as a corollary that the· proceedings started pursuant to the notification cannot also be quashed. In the result we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and dismiss the connected writ application filed by respondent No. I. Since he has not appeared there will be no order as to costs. V.P.S. Appeal al/mred. "