JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners have moved this Court against the order passed by the State Government by notification No. VI/W3-1081/68-L &-E-79/(6), dated the 20th of May, 1968 (annexure 5 to the petition), under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, revising the minimum rates payable in the whole of Bihar to such categories of employees 5 employed in the Mica Work (Mica Mines and Factories) as fixed earlier, and the other passed under notification No. VI/W3-1081/68-L & E-963(6), dated the 20th of June, 1968 (annexure 5/1 to the petition), by which the State Government issued errata and made corrections in the above notification (annexure 5). By the first notification the Government of Bihar fixed the minimum wages for the categories of employees under the petitioners and by the second notification, according to the petitioners, there was an enhancement of the minimum rates of wages of a large number of categories of employees employed in Mica Works. The following general questions have been raised by learned Counsel in support of the application.
(1) A Government Officer, being the Labour Commissioner, was appointed Chairman of the committee appointed to advise the Government.
(2). The committee to advise the Government was not properly constituted because of the defect the Chairman being the Labour Commissioner, who is a Government officer.
(3) A settlement having been arrive at between the Government am the workers prior to the advice given by the committee, it was not competent to Government to fix the minimum wages in ex cess of the rates settled between the Mica Syndicate or Management and the workers at the con dilation stage.
(4) The second notification of June 1968 issuing: an errata under Section 10 of the Minimum Wages Act amounted to an increase in the wages and thus a revision of the minimum wages fixed under the notification of May 1968. This was not in terms of Section 10 of the Act and hence without jurisdiction.
5. Before revision of wages is made, it should be advised by a committee or sub-committee. In the present case, however, no opinion was given by any Committee to the Government and as such the revision of wages as represented by annexures 5 and 5/1 cannot be treated as a revision of wages in accordance with Section 5 of the Act.
2. As to the first point, which is the only point of importance urged by learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners, he has referred to two decisions, one being, Narottamdas v. Gowarikar 1961 (1) L. L. J. 442 and the other being, Banalesh. S. Patel v. Stale of Andhra Pradesh 1965 (1) L. L. J. 28. The first judgment was delivered in the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the second judgment contains the decision of Andhra Pradesh, High Court, In the case of Narottamdas, learned Judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court expressed the opinion that a committee constituted under Section 5(1) of the Act (which refers to the personnel of the committee) ha? to follow the provision of Section 9, which runs thus:
Each of the committees, subcommittees and the Advisory Board shall consist of persons to be nominated by the appropriate Government representing employers and employees in the scheduled employments, who shall be equal in number, and independent persons not exceeding one-third of its total number of members; one of such independent persons shall be appointed the Chairman by the appropriate Government.
The question for consideration before the Madhya Pradesh High Court was whether a Government servant such as the Labour Commissioner can or cannot be regarded as an independent person within the meaning of Section 9. The learned Judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court came to the conclusion that a Government servant could not be regarded as an independent person because Government also would be taken to be interested in the sense that Government has got a policy in such labour disputes and a Government servant may well be suspected of tipping the balance in the decision of the committee in favour of the Government point of view. It cannot however, be gathered from the judgment as to how exactly the Government can be held to be interested in a dispute between the management and the employees of the industry except in so far as Government is interested in “securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief, and that it shall, endeavour to secure…a living wage ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities”. We are unable to see now this broad policy of the State enjoined under Articles 42 and 43 of the Constitution can in any way make the Government; a party interested in the immediate issue of fixing a fair rate of wages regulating the relationship between the employee and the employee in an industry. It is true that the view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has been followed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the other decision referred to above. As opposed to it, however, learned Counsel for the opposite party has drawn our attention to the following decisions:
Jaswant Rai v. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1958 Punjab 425; Bengal Motion Pictures Employees Union v. Kohinoor Pictures Private Ltd. ; Ramkrishna Ramnath v. The State of Maharashtra ; Chandrabhava Boarding and Lodging v. State of Mysore A.I.R. 1968 Mysore 156 and P. Gangadharan Pillai v. State of Kerala . With respect, we are inclined to agree with the line of reasoning adopted by the Calcutta High Court and the other High Courts taking the same view, as, in our opinion, that view is sounder than the view which appealed to the learned Judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. As we have already indicated, the pursuit of a broad policy of bettering the conditions of industrial employees in terms of Articles 42 and 43 of the Constitution cannot be regarded as making the State interested in the parties in the settlement of such disputes so as to make a Government servant nominated to the committee as person who cannot be regarded as independent within the meaning of Section 9 of the Act. It is unnecessary to. refer to the reasons which have been discussed in great detail by the learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court and other Hon’ble Judges and, with respect, we agree that the correct view to be taken is that a Government servant must be regarded as an independent person within the meaning of Section 9, except in the situation referred to in D.M.S. Rao v. The State of Kerala in which it has been held that where, in the particular circumstances of a case, the State Government owns an industry as an employer and there is a dispute between the workman of such an industry and management, then the State can be held to be vitally interested and the official may not be regarded as an independent person. Except in such a situation, therefore, where there is a dispute between the management of an industry and its employees, the nomination of a Government servant as an independent person cannot be regarded as nomination of a person who is not independent. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad appearing for the petitions, however, has contended that in this case the situation is slightly different because Government also is owning a mica industry. Learned Counsel for the oppisite party has denied that it is so. He has submitted that the Bihar Mica Syndicate is a corporate body and the State of Bihar cannot be regarded, therefore, in any sense, as owner of any mica industry. Apart from this fact, however, it may be pointed that if objection were made -by the employees that something has been done adverse to their interest, he point urged on behalf of the petitioners might be taken to be a plausible one. But it is not so and hence neither factually nor in the circumstances of the case, can it be regarded that the Labour Commissioner was (sic) an independent person appointed under Section 9 as a member of the committee and also a chairman of it.
3. The next point raised by learned Counsel is with regard to annexure 5/1. We have already indi(sic) (sic) that this is considered as revision of the wage scales of the various categories of the workers mentioned in annexure 5/1, but, according to learned Counsel for the opposite party, this revision was only of an arithmetical or technical nature. A look at the revision shows that the upward revision is only of a few pice in the wages to be paid to certain categories of workers. It is true, no doubt, that if the revision were to be considered as revision, as a whole, of the minimum wages fixed under annexure 5, it might be that a fresh reference to a committee would be necessitated and the requirement of law of consulting the employers also would have to be fulfilled before revision could be ordered by Government. As it is, however, we have looked into the statement filed on behalf of the petitioners and we find nothing there to show that arty allegation has been made that the revision of wages under annexure 5/1 was as a result of change of policy. It is true, no doubt, that some allegation has been made to, that effect in the grounds, but that is not sufficient. If anything, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, it has been maintained that it is not revision of policy which resulted in the minor increase in wages, but the increase was only of an arithmetical character. A question has been raised on behalf of the opposite party that it was in pursuance of a statement of policy made on the floor of the Bihar Assembly by the then Chief Minister. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the statement alleged to have been made by the Chief Minister should be called for. We have not felt warranted in acceding to the prayer of calling for the said statement made on the floor of the House because there is no clear averment to that effect in the petition itself, the Change also is of such a minor nature that it is very difficult to hold that it was as a result of any change in policy. This contention also, therefore, urged on behalf of the petitioners by teamed Counsel must be held to be one without substance.
4. Learned Counsel has also urged that since there was already a valid settlement in course of the conciliation proceedings between the workers and the management, it was no longer open to Government to fix the minimum wage of the employees under the Minimum Wages Act. Since, however, the minimum wages under the Act are to be fixed on ac-count of the statutory policy laid down in the Act itself, it must be held that it is not the ordinary class of cases where in a conciliation proceeding an agreement arrived at between the; management and the employees is binding on the parties, but it is a ease which is governed by the legislative provisions in a statute to which any existing scale of wages or any settlement arrived at between the management and the employees must be subject. For this proposition, a reference has been made by learned Counsel for the opposite party to the decision of the Supreme Court in U. Unichoyi v. State of Kerala . In my opinion, the contention of learned Counsel on behalf of the opposite party is well grounded and the argument urged on behalf of the petitioners even on this point cannot be accepted as correct.
5. Yet another point has been raised by learned Counsel for the petitioners which is to the effect that even for fixing the minimum, wages under annexure 5, advice of the committee appointed by Government under Section 5(1) was not tendered. Endeavour was made to substantiate it with reference to some statement: in another proceeding. It may be stated that there is a clear denial of it in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State in the circumstances, it must be held that there is no substance in this point as well urged on behalf of the petitioners.
6. The petition is accordingly dismissed.