Bombay High Court
Veneer Glass Industries, Through ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 13 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
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 00:42:02 :::
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 00:42:02 :::
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
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
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
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
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
