1 J-WP-5395-13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5395 OF 2013
Hartex Tubes Pvt. Ltd.
87, Canal Road, Ramdaspeth,
Nagpur - 440010.
Through its Director. ..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Industry, Energy & Labour Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032.
2. Advisory Board,
Constituted under Sec.7 of the
Minimum Wages Act,
Through its Secretary,
Industry, Energy & Labour Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R. B. Puranik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. Harshada Prabhu, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 626 OF 2014
Veneer Glass Industries,
115/1/A, Khairi, Kamptee Road,
Nagpur - 441002,
Through its Partner. ..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Industry, Energy & Labour Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032.
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/06/2017 00:42:04 :::
2 J-WP-5395-13.odt
2. Advisory Board,
Constituted under Sec.7 of the
Minimum Wages Act,
Through its Secretary,
Industry, Energy & Labour Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R. B. Puranik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. Harshada Prabhu, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5881 OF 2013
M/s. Radha Polymers,
Through its Partner
Shri Madhusudan Pacheriwala,
483 Factory at S-36 MIDC,
Hingna, District : Nagpur. ..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Industry, Energy and Labour
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 32.
2. Advisory Board,
Under the Minimum Wages Act,
Through its Secretary,
Industry, Energy and Labour
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 32.
3. Commissioner of Labour,
Tardev, Near Air-Conditioner Marg,
Mumbai. ... RESPONDENTS
Dilip s/o Dhanraj Talmale,
Aged about : 40 years,
Occ. Service, R/o Nagpur. ... INTERVENER
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/06/2017 00:42:04 :::
3 J-WP-5395-13.odt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.S. Ghate, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. Harshada Prabhu, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:-
SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATED :-
13/06/2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.) Since the issue involved in these petitions is identical and similar prayers are made therein, they are heard together and are decided by this common Judgment.
By these petitions, the petitioners - Rubber and Glass Industries are challenging the notification of the State Government fixing the minimum wages for the employees of Rubber and Glass Industry under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
The petitioners are Private Limited Companies involved in the manufacturing and sale of rubber and glass products. With a view to revise the minimum rates of wages in respect of the scheduled employment including the rubber and glass industry, the State Government issued a draft notification under Section 5(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 on 07/03/2012. It is the case of the ::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/06/2017 00:42:04 ::: 4 J-WP-5395-13.odt petitioners that neither the petitioners - employers nor the employees raised any objection to the draft notification deciding to revise the minimum wages for the employees of the said industries. The State Government issued the final notification further hiking the minimum wages for the employees of the aforesaid industries by the notification dated 25/06/2013. The said notification is challenged by the petitioners in these writ petitions.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the State Government was not justified in revising the rates of minimum wages of their employees to a great extent and much above the wages that were sought to be revised in terms of the draft notification, published on 07/03/2012. It is submitted that the opinion of the Advisory Committee ought not have been relied on by the State Government while enhancing the rates of minimum wages to such a great extent. It is submitted that if there was a time lag between the draft notification and the final notification and if according to the Advisory Committee and the State Government there was further inflation, price index 196 would not have been taken as the base figure in the draft as well as the final notification. It is submitted that the opinion of the Advisory Committee ought not have been considered by the State Government, specially when the opinion was based on extraneous considerations, inasmuch as the Advisory Committee had ::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/06/2017 00:42:04 ::: 5 J-WP-5395-13.odt opined that the employees of the rubber industry were entitled to a greater hike in the minimum wages as they were educated. It is submitted that education cannot be a criteria in fixing of minimum wages for the employees of scheduled industries and since the impugned notification is based on the wrongful opinion of the Advisory Committee, the same is liable to be set aside.
Mrs. Prabhu, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the minimum wages were liable to be revised in the year 2012 as they were earlier revised in the year 2007. It is submitted that there was severe inflation during the intervening years and also during the period between the issuance of the draft notification and the final notification by the State Government. It is submitted that the hike in the minimum wages cannot be said to be exorbitant considering the time lag between the earlier notification of the year 2007 and the impugned notification. It is submitted that the Advisory Board had considered the rise in the prices of the commodities and inflation during the period between 07/03/2012 till the issuance of impugned notification to opine that the minimum wages for the aforesaid industries should be fixed, as are mentioned in the impugned notification. It is submitted that certain incentives are granted by the Government to the industries like the petitioners and it would be necessary for the employer - Industries to give some part of the profit ::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/06/2017 00:42:04 ::: 6 J-WP-5395-13.odt received by them to their employees, specially when they avail the incentives granted by the State Government. It is submitted that though by the draft notification, increase in special allowance was proposed @ Rs.19.75 per point in the consumer price index, as per the impugned notification, the special allowance has been increased to Rs.28/- per point because of the time lag between the two notifications. It is submitted that the procedure, as is required to be followed while revising minimum wages was duly followed by the State Government before revising the minimum wages.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that it would not be proper to interfere with the impugned notification in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. This is not the case where the procedure required to be followed under the provisions of Section 5 of the Act is not followed by the State Government. The State Government had issued the draft notification under Section 5(b) of the Act and had also sought and obtained the opinion of the Advisory Committee before revising the minimum wages. We have perused the opinion of the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee has clearly opined that in view of the inflation as also the fact that the employees of the rubber industries are educated, minimum wages are liable to be revised, as mentioned in the opinion of the Advisory Committee. The revision in the minimum wages is not based solely on the fact that the ::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/06/2017 00:42:04 ::: 7 J-WP-5395-13.odt employees are educated but is based on the inflation. It would not be proper for this Court to substitute its opinion for the opinion of the Advisory Committee, specially when it does not appear that the opinion of the Advisory Committee is based on extraneous considerations. According to the Government, rubber industries are situated in the vicinity of big cities and since the cost of living of the employees in the vicinity of such cities, specially when they are educated is much more, this aspect has been rightly considered by the Advisory Committee while revising the wages of the employees of the rubber industries. Since we do not find that the State Government has not followed the procedure as laid down by the Act of 1948 before issuance of the notification revising the minimum wages under Section 5 of the Act, it would not be proper to interfere with the impugned notification in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
In the result, the writ petitions fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Choulwar
::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/06/2017 00:42:04 :::