Bombay High Court
Dr. Aasif G. Shaikh vs Industry, Energy And Labour Dept. ... on 6 May, 2016
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1315 OF 2015
...
Dr.Aasif G.Shaikh
Adult,
R/at 102, Ajanta Apt.,
Bhyandar Police Station,
Bhayandar (West),
District: Thane ...Petitioner
v/s.
1.Industry, Energy and Labour Department,
State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2.The State of Maharashtra
3.Sayed Ali Ashraf
Adut,
R/at: Aziz Manzil,
Bombay Colony,
Mumbra, District: Thane ...Respondents
...
Mr.Sandesh D.Patil i/b Ms.Megha Laxman Keluskar for the Petitioner.
Mr.C.P.Yadav, AGP for State-Respondents Nos.1 to 3.
...
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA &
A.A.SAYED, JJ.
DATED: 6 MAY 2016
Uday P. Kambli
JUDGMENT : (Per A.A.SAYED, J.)
By this Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, the
Petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the Government Resolution/Order
dated 3 September 2014, whereby the appointment of the Petitioner as
Chairman of the Advisory Board constituted under the Minimum Wages
Act, 1948 and Rules framed thereunder was revoked and in his place
Respondent No.3 was appointed.
2.
On 23 May 2013, the Respondent No.2-State of Maharashtra under
the provisions of Section 7 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter
referred to as `the said Act') and Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Minimum
Wages Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to 'Maharashtra Rules') had
appointed the Petitioner as Chairman of the Advisory Board. According to
the Petitioner, there were about 25 persons appointed as members of the
said Board and the Petitioner was appointed as a Chairman of the said
Board.
3. It is the case of the Petitioner that he had worked for more than 16
months as a Chairman of the Advisory Board, however all of a sudden by
Government Resolution/order dated 3 September 2014 his appointment
Uday P. Kambli
was revoked and in his place Respondent No.3 was appointed. The
Petitioner contends that the impugned Government Resolution/order is
bad in law and that his appointment ought not to have been revoked
without notice and without following principles of natural justice. According
to the Petitioner, in the appointment order it is stated that the Advisory
Board is constituted as per Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Rules, for a period
of 3 years viz. 23 May 2013 to 22 May 2016 and the Respondent therefore
could not have curtailed the aforesaid period of three years.
4.
We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned
AGP.
5. Under Section 4 of the said Act, the minimum wages are required to
be fixed. The procedure for fixing and revising the minimum wages is
prescribed in Section 5. Section 7 provides that the Advisory Board is to
be constituted by the appropriate Government (i.e. State Government, in
the present case) for co-ordinating the work of committees and sub-
committees appointed under Section 5 and advising the appropriate
Government generally in the matter of fixing and revising minimum rates of
wages. The term of office of member of the Advisory Board is provided
under Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Rules. It reads as follows:
Uday P. Kambli
"4. Term of office of member of the Board.-
(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in these rules, the
term of office of a non-official member of the Board, shall be
three years commencing on the date of his nomination:
Provided that such member shall, notwithstanding
the expiry of the said period of three years, continue to hold
office until his successor is nominated.
(2) A non-official member of the Board nominated to
fill a casual vacancy shall hold office for the remaining
period of the term of office of the member in whose place
he is nominated.
(3) The official member of the Board shall hold office
during the pleasure of the State Government."
6. According to the Petitioner he was appointed as Chairman and falls
in the category of non-official member and therefore his tenure is 3 years.
After going through the relevant provisions of the said Act and the Rules,
we are of the view that the Petitioner cannot be said to have any vested
right to be continued as Chairman of the Advisory Board. It is pertinent to
note that under sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 even the official member of the
Board is permitted to hold office during the pleasure of the State
Government. The Petitioner, therefore, cannot claim any right for
continuing him as the Chairman of the Advisory Board for the entire period
of three years, as it sought to be contended. It is noticed that the
Uday P. Kambli
Chairman and members are paid only traveling allowance and daily
allowance. As a matter of fact the Government Resolution/Order dated 23
May 2013 by which the Advisory Board was constituted and the Petitioner
was appointed as the Chairman, specifically states that except for the
traveling allowance and daily allowance the non-official members are not
entitled to any other allowance. Inasmuch as the Petitioner did not have
any vested right to continue as a Chairman of the Advisory Board, there
was no question of following the principles of natural justice before
removing him as the Chairman of the Advisory Board. As stated earlier as
per sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Rules even the official
member of the Board can hold office only during the pleasure of the State
Government. The Petitioner who is stated to be a non-official member
cannot claim any higher right than that of an official member of the
Advisory Board. In any event, there is no provision in the Act or in the
Maharashtra Rules that prior to removal of the Chairman of the Advisory
Board, principles of natural justice are required to be followed. It is also not
possible to accept the contention on behalf of the Petitioner that if at, all
the members of the Advisory Committee ought to have been removed at
one time and not merely the Petitioner. Pertinently, there is no averment in
the Petition that the removal of the Petitioner was on account of any
malafides on part of the Respondents.
Uday P. Kambli
7. In B.P.Singhal v/s. Union of India and anr. 1, relied upon by the
learned Counsel for the Petitioner to contend that the doctrine of pleasure
cannot be applied in the present case, the Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court was dealing with a Public Interest Litigation concerning the
removal of the Governors of States of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana
and Goa by the President of India on the advice of the Union Council of
Ministers. The facts of that case are entirely different.
8. The judgment in the case of Mr.Jeevanrao V.Gore v/s. State of
Maharashtra (Writ Petition No.326 of 2015 and bunch of other connected
Writ Petitions) of the Division Bench of this Court also would also not apply
to the facts of the present case. That case was under the State Road
Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and Rules framed thereunder, which Act
and Rules are quite different and distinct from the said Act and the
Maharashtra Rules as the same provided for some restrictions before
terminating the Chairman appointed under the provisions of that Act/Rules.
9. However, quite apart from the above, it is an admitted position that
the tenure of the Petitioner as Chairman of the Advisory Board, in any
event comes to an end on 23 May 2016, i.e. about 17 days from today. In
these circumstances, even otherwise, we are not inclined to exercise
1 (2010) 6 SCC 331
Uday P. Kambli
extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court to continue the Petitioner as a
Chairman of the Advisory Board.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, no case is made out for interference with
the impugned Government Resolution/Order. The Petition is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
(A.A.SAYED, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
Uday P. Kambli
