PETITIONER: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. RESPONDENT: NARAYANA VELUR BEEDI MANUFACTURING FACTORY & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT26/03/1973 BENCH: GROVER, A.N. BENCH: GROVER, A.N. MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN MUKHERJEA, B.K. CITATION: 1973 AIR 1307 1973 SCR (3) 755 1973 SCC (4) 178 CITATOR INFO : F 1976 SC 277 (5) ACT: Minimum Wages Act, 1948, s. 9-'Independent persons'--If include Government officials. HEADNOTE: The appellant-Government passed an order revising minimum wages in the Bidi industry. It was based on the recommendation of a Committee of six members consisting of persons representing employers and employees and the Chief inspector and Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories. Section 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, requires that the Committee shall consist of an equal number of representatives of the employer and the employees and of independent persons not exceeding one third of its total number. On the question whether the two Government officials could be regarded as independent persons, HELD : The mere fact that they happened to be Government officials or Government servants will not divest them of the character of independent persons. [761C] The language of s. 9 does not contain any indication 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. [76OG-H] Further, the presence of high government officials, who may have actual 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. It may be that in certain circumstances such persons may cease to have an independent character if the question of fixation of minimum wages in an employment in which the appropriate Government is directly interested, arises. It would therefore depend upon the facts of each particular case whether the persons who have been appointed could be regarded' as independent or not. It is not correct to say that a Government official will have a bias or that he may favour the policy which the appropriate Government may be inclined to adopt. be,cause, when he is a member of an Advisory Committee he is expected to give an impartial and independent advice and not merely carry out what the Government may be inclined to do. Government officials are responsible persons and are capable of taking a detached and impartial view. [76OH: 761A-E] Jaswant Rai Berl & Others v. State of Punjab & another, A.I.R. 1958 Punj. 425, D. M. S. Rao & Others v. The Stare of Kerala & Another, A.I.R. 1963 Kerala 115, Bengal Motion Pictures Employees Union, Calcutta v. Kohinoor Pictures Private Ltd. & Ors. A.I.R. 1964 Cal. 619, Ramkrishna Raninath Nagpur & Another v. Tile State of Maharashtra & Another, A.I.R. 1964 Bom, 51, Chandrabhave Boarding and Lodging & Others v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1968 Mys. 156 and P. Gangadharan Pillai v. State of Kerala & Others, A.I.R. 1968 Kerala 218, approved. 756 Norotamdas Harjivandas v. P. V. Gourikar, Inspector, Minimum Wages, A.I.R. 1961 M.B. 182 and Kohinoor Pictures (Private) Ltd. 'V. State of West Bengal & Others, [1961] 2 L.L.J, 741, over ruled. JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1659 to
1662 of 1967.
Appeals by certificate from the judgment and order dated
January 31, 1964 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at
Hyderabad in Writ Petition Nos. 337/63, 746/62, 735/62 and
807/62, respectively.
P. Ram Reddy and A. V. V. Nair, for the appellant.
M. C. Chagla, H. K. Puri and Niranjana Shah, for the res-
pondents (in C. A. No. 1659) respondents 1 to 10, 12 to 14,
16 and 19 to 29 (in C.A. No. 1660), Respondent No. 1 (in
C.A. No. 1661) and Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 (in C.A. No.
1662).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GROVER, J.-The sole question which has to be decided in
these appeals by certificate from a judgment of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court is the meaning of the word “independent”
in S. 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, hereinafter called
the “Act”.
The Act was enacted to provide for fixing the minimum rates
of wages in certain employments. Section 2 gives the
definition of various expressions. Clauses (e) (h) and (i)
give the meaning of the words “employer”, “wages” and
“employee” respectively. Section 3 provides for fixing of
the minimum rates of wages by the appropriate government and
their review at certain intervals. Section 5 gives the
procedure for fixing and revising minimum wages. Section 5
reads
S. 5 (1) “In fixing minimum rates of wages in
respect of any scheduled employment for the
first time under this Act or in revising
minimum rates of wages so fixed, the
appropriate government shall either-
(a)appoint as many committees and sub-
committees as it considers necessary to hold
enquiries and advise it in respect of such
fixation or revision, as the case may be, or
(b) by notification in the Official Gazette,
publish its proposals for the information of
persons likely to be affected thereby and
specify a date not less than two months from
the date of the notification, on which the
proposals will be taken into considers
(2)After considering the advice of the
committee or committees appointed under clause
(a) of sub-section
757
(1)or as the case may be, all representations
received by it before the date specified in
the notification under clause (b) of that sub-
section, the appropriate government shall, by
notification in the Official Gazette, fix, or,
as the case may be, revise the minimum rates
of wages in respect of each scheduled
employment, and unless such notification
otherwise provides, it shall come into force
on the expiry of three months from the date of
its issue :
Provided……………………….”
Section 9 relates to composition of committees etc. and is
in these terms
S.9.”Each of the committees, sub-committees
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 Government Order which was challenged related to the
revision of minimum wages in the Bidi industry. It was
based on the recommendation of a committee consisting of six
members, two of whom were Chief Inspector of Factories,
Hyderabad, and’ Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories,
Hyderabad; the former being the Chairman. These two
officers were to be on the committees from among the
category of independent persons mentioned in s. 9. The whole
controversy has centered on the question whether the
aforesaid two officers could be regarded as independent per-
sons. There are a number of decisions of the High Courts.
In majority of them, namely, Jaswant Rai Beri & Others v.
State of Punjab & Another;(1) D. M. S. Rao & Others v. The
State of Kerala & Another, (2) Bengal Motion Pictures
Employees Union, Calcutta v. Kohinoor Pictures Private Ltd.
& Others, (3) Ramkrishna Ramnath Nagpur & Another v. The
State of Maharashtra & Another; (4 ) Chandrabhava Boarding &
Lodging and Others v. State of Mysore.(5) and P. Gangadharan
Pillai v. State of Kerala & Others, (6) has been held that
the mere fact that a person happens to be , government
servant or that he is an officer, he does not cease to be an
independent person within the meaning of S. 9. The only two
decisions in which a contrary view has been taken are
Narottamdas Harjivandas v. P. V. Gowarikar, Inspector,
(1) A.I.R. 1958 Punj. 425.
(3) A.I.R. 1964 Cal. 519.
(5) A.I.R. 1968 Mys. 156.
(2) A.I.R. 1963 Kerala 115.
(4) A.T.R. 1964 Bom. 51.
(6) A.I.R. 1968 Kerala 218.
16–L761Sup.C.I./73
758
Minimum Wages(1) and Kohinoor Pictures (Private) Ltd. v.
State of West Bengal & Others;(2) the latter is a judgment
of the learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court. It
may be mentioned that in the judgment under appeal the
Andhra Pradesh High Court has also taken the same view as
the Madhya Pradesh court.
The reasoning of Bishan Narain J.. in the Punjab case is
quite simple. The learned Judge considered that in the
context of S. 9 an independent person means a person who is
neither an employer nor an employee in the employment for
which minimum wages are to be fixed, The presence of
independent persons is necessary to safeguard the interests
of those whose requirements are met by the trade concerned.
In a welfare State, according to him, it is the business of
the Government to create conditions wherein private
employers can carry on their trade profitably as long as the
workmen are not exploited. In such circumstances the
appointment of a Labour Commissioner, who is conversant with
the employment conditions, cannot be objected to on the
ground that he was not an independent person. In the first
Kerala case C. A Vaidialingam J.. as he then was, gave some
additional reasons for supporting the view of Bishan Narain
J. He referred to s. 2(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act
1947 for illustrating that a person shall be deemed to be
independent for the purpose of his appointment as Chairman
or other members of a Board, Court or Tribunal if he was
unconnected with the industrial dispute referred to such
Board, Court or Tribunal or with any industry directly.
effected by such dispute. This is what the learned Judge
observed with reference to the provisions of S. 9:
“When-it speaks of persons to be nominated by
the Government to the committee representing
employers and employees in the scheduled
employments and also. of nominating an
“independent person”, in my view, the object
of the enactment is that the “independent
person” should be who has nothing to do with
the employers or employees in the scheduled
employment in question. It may that under
particular circumstances, when an industry, in
which the State Government as an employer may
also be vitally interested and in which case
it can be considered to be an employer, it may
not be proper to nominate an official to the
committee treating him as an independent
member”.
A division bench of the Calcutta High Court consisting of
Bose C. J. and G. K. Mitter J., as he then was, in Bengal
Motion Pictures Employees Union v. Kohinoor Pictures P. Ltd.
(3) referred
(1) A.I.R. 1961 M.P. 182.
(3) A.I.R. 1964 Cal. 519.
(2) 1961 2 L.L.J. 741.
759
to the legislative policy underlying the enactment of the
Act. What is aimed at is the; statutory fixation of minimum
wages with a view to obviating the chances of exploitation
of labour. Such being the main object it was natural to
expect that the Government would seek the assistance of
persons who were well conversant with the conditions of
labour industrial competition, profits from the industry and
various other relevant factors which are to be considered in
fixing the minimum wages. It could hardly be doubted that
persons like the Labour Commissioner or the Deputy Labour
Commissioner are most suitable persons to be consulted for
the purpose. The other reason given in the Calcutta case
was similar to the one which prevailed with Bishan Narain
J., in the Punjab case. In the Bombay case the Division
Bench referred to certain rules framed under s. 30 of the
Act by the Government of Bombay. According to Rule 4
provision was made for terms of office of members of the
Board and a distinction was made in subrules 2 and 3 between
the non-official member and the official member of the
Board. From the scheme of the rules it was inferred that
even Government officials were contemplated to fall within
the category of “independent persons”. It is unnecessary to
refer to the other decisions which favour the majority view.
In the Madhya Pradesh case P. V. Dixit, C.J., delivering the
judgment of the Bench said that the expression “independent
persons” did riot mean persons who were independent only of
employers and employees in the scheduled employment and in-
cluded officials. The ordinary connotation of the word
“independent person”, it was pointed out, is of a person who
is not dependent on any body, authority or Organisation and
who is able to form his own opinion without any control or
guidance of any outside agency. It appears that in this
case the learned Judges were influenced by the consideration
that the State is actively interested in the wage earners
and in the matter of fixation of minimum wages. That
precluded Government officials from falling within the class
of independent persons provided for by S. 9. In Kohinoor
Pictures case(1) a learned single judge while appreciating
that the advisory committees constituted under 5 read with
s. 9 of the Act have a purely advisory function, took the
view that the appropriate Government in fixing the minimum
rates of wages was not at all a disinterested person. He
also took-into consideration the interest which the
Government may have in fixing the minimum wages. According
to him the fixation of minimum wages is an operation
compelling the employer to make a payment whether he wishes
it or not and in most cases contrary to his wishes. Three
parties are involved in such compulsory fixation, namely,
the Government, the employer and the employed. If
(1) [1961] 2.L.L.J. 741.
760
the advisory committee is really to consist of independent
persons categories. they should be independent of all the
three
Mr. Chagla for the respondents has relied a great deal on
the dictionary meanings of the word ”independent” as given
in Shorter oxford English Dictionary. One of the principal
meaning given is “not depending upon the authority of
another; not in position of subordination; not subject to
external control or rule”. According to Mr. Chagla a
Government official cannot be regarded as independent
because he is to depend upon the authority of the government
and is in position of subordination and is subject to
external control. It has been strenuously urged that the
whole object of having an advisory committee is to get an
impartial opinion or advice in the matter of fixing of
minimum wages. The committee has to consist of
representatives of employers and the employees in the
scheduled employment who have to be equal in number. The
presence of independent persons not exceeding one third of
the total number of members is necessary to ensure that a
proper balance is maintained between the view of the
representatives of the employers and the employees
respectively. If a government official and, in particular,
one associated either with labour or factories in his
official capacity is brought into the committee he is.
likely to be biased in his views for various reasons. He
may-know the policy of the government or he may himself have
participated in the formulation of that policy. He may have
certain predilection because of special knowledge obtained
by him while serving in a department which is connected.
with labour or industry. All these matters would divest him
of the character of an independent person.
In our judgment the view which has prevailed with the majo-
rity of the High Courts must be sustained. The committee or
the advisory board can only tender advise which is not
binding on the government while fixing the minimum wages or
revising the same as the case may be. Of course the
government is expected, particularly in the present
democratic 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. 9 does not contain any indication whatso-
ever that persons in the employment of the government would
be excluded from the category of independent persons. These
words have essentially been employed in contradistiction 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 theservice or employ of
the government were meant to be excluded and they cannot be
regarded as independent persons vis-a-vis therepresentatives
of the employers and employees. Apart from this the
presence of high government officiaIs
761
who may have actual 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 arises 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 impressed
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 inclinded to do.
Government officials are responsible persons and it cannot
be said that they are not capable of taking a detached and
impartial view.
For the reasons given above the appeals are allowed and the
judgment of the High Court is hereby set aside. As other
matters were left undecided in the writ petitions out of
which these appeals have arisen the case shall go back to
the High Court for disposal ,in accordance with law. Costs
shall abide the event.
V.P.S. Appeals allowed. 76 2