1964 (4) TMI 122 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962.
2. Whether the Act was an independent legislation or merely a validation of a previous notification.
3. Whether the retrospective effect of the Act imposed unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution.
4. Whether the Act contravened Article 20(1) of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962:
The appellant challenged the validity of the Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962 (Act No. 16 of 1962), claiming it was not an exercise of independent legislative power but merely an attempt to validate a previous notification dated December 30, 1958, which had been struck down by the High Court. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the Madhya Pradesh Legislature had the legislative competence to make a law regarding minimum wages under Entry 24 of List III (Sch. Seventh). The Court found that the Act was an independent piece of legislation, despite the fact that the rates mentioned in the new Act were identical to those in the previous notification.

2. Independent Legislation vs. Validation of Previous Notification:
The appellant argued that the Act was not independent legislation but an attempt to validate the December 30, 1958 notification. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the Act fixed wages in respect of certain employments at the rates mentioned in the Table appended to the Act. The Court highlighted that the legislature was fixing minimum rates of wages for itself, and the fact that these rates were identical to those in the previous notification did not make the Act a mere validation of the old rates. The Court concluded that the Act was indeed independent legislation.

3. Retrospective Effect and Unreasonable Restrictions on Fundamental Rights:
The appellant contended that the retrospective effect of the Act imposed unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court acknowledged that while the retrospective operation of legislation is a relevant circumstance in deciding its reasonableness, it is not necessarily a decisive test. The Court referenced the decision in Rai Ramkrishna v. State of Bihar, which upheld the retrospective operation of a validating Act. The Court found that the retrospective effect of the Act did not impose unreasonable restrictions, as employers had been aware of the requirement to pay at these rates for the entire period from April 1, 1959, and should have made provisions accordingly.

4. Contravention of Article 20(1) of the Constitution:
The appellant argued that the Act contravened Article 20(1) of the Constitution by making the new rates of wages payable from January 1, 1959, even for the past period. The Supreme Court clarified that the new rates of wages became enforceable from January 1, 1959, but payable only from June 21, 1962, the date of the publication of the Ordinance. The Court held that the duty to pay at these rates arose only on and from June 21, 1962, and no liability to pay compensation or face prosecution would arise if payment was made on that date. Consequently, the Act did not contravene Article 20(1) of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962. The Court found that the Act was independent legislation, did not impose unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights, and did not contravene Article 20(1) of the Constitution. The appeal was dismissed with costs.