1967 (4) TMI 210 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of Rule 126-AA under the Defence of India Rules, 1962.
2. Compliance with conditions precedent for issuing notifications under Rule 126-AA(1).
3. Allegations of mala fide intent in issuing notifications under Rule 126-AA(1).
4. Validity of notifications under Rule 126-AA(4) regulating wages and other conditions of service.
5. Necessity of consultation before issuing notifications under Rule 126-AA(4).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Rule 126-AA under the Defence of India Rules, 1962:

The High Court concluded that Rule 126-AA did not constitute excessive delegation of power and was within the authority conferred under Section 3 of the Defence of India Act, 1962. These conclusions were not contested by either party before the Supreme Court, and thus, they were not further examined.

2. Compliance with Conditions Precedent for Issuing Notifications under Rule 126-AA(1):

The High Court found that the conditions precedent to the exercise of power under Rule 126-AA(1) were not met. Specifically, the Governor did not form the necessary opinion before issuing the notification, and it was not demonstrated that the employments included were essential for securing public safety and maintaining supplies and services necessary to the life of the community. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the notification indicated the Governor's opinion that the employments were essential for both purposes. The Court found that the notification was in compliance with Rule 126-AA(1) and that the Governor's opinion could not be challenged unless shown to be mala fide or unreasonable. However, the Court struck down the notification regarding veneer mills, as it was not reasonable to consider them essential for public safety or maintaining supplies and services.

3. Allegations of Mala Fide Intent in Issuing Notifications under Rule 126-AA(1):

The High Court held that the notification under Rule 126-AA(1) was mala fide in law, although there was no evidence of factual mala fides. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding no basis for mala fide intent. The Court emphasized that the Governor's opinion, as stated in the notification, was sufficient unless proven to be for extraneous purposes or unreasonable.

4. Validity of Notifications under Rule 126-AA(4) Regulating Wages and Other Conditions of Service:

The High Court invalidated the notifications under Rule 126-AA(4) on the grounds that they did not demonstrate how the regulation of wages was necessary for securing public safety and maintaining supplies and services. The Supreme Court found that it was not necessary for the notifications to explicitly state these purposes. However, the Court examined whether the power under Rule 126-AA(4) was subject to subjective satisfaction or required objective criteria.

5. Necessity of Consultation Before Issuing Notifications under Rule 126-AA(4):

The Supreme Court held that the power under Rule 126-AA(4) to regulate wages and conditions of service was analogous to the power of industrial tribunals and should not be exercised purely on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. The Court emphasized the need for consultation with the interests concerned, including employers and employees, before issuing such notifications. The consultation should be employment-specific, and the Government should collect data and consider representations from the affected parties. The Court found that the consultation process described in the appellant's affidavit was insufficient and struck down the notifications under Rule 126-AA(4) for lack of proper consultation.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the notification under Rule 126-AA(1), except for veneer mills, and struck down the notifications under Rule 126-AA(4) due to inadequate consultation, though for reasons different from those of the High Court. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs in all the appeals.