9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notification issued under Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 2. Authority of the respondent to prescribe rules regarding "chhat" bidis and the settlement of disputes between employers and employees. 3. Application of the doctrine of implied power in the context of the Minimum Wages Act. 4. Severability of the invalid clauses from the valid ones in the notification. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Notification Issued Under Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948: The primary issue was the validity of the notification dated June 11, 1958, issued by the State of Bombay (now Maharashtra) under Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The petitioners challenged the notification, asserting that clauses 3 to 7 were ultra vires the powers of the respondent under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Act. The High Court had a divided opinion, with a majority holding clauses 1 to 5 and the first part of clause 6 as intra vires, while the latter part of clause 6 and clause 7 were held ultra vires. 2. Authority of the Respondent to Prescribe Rules Regarding "Chhat" Bidis and the Settlement of Disputes: The petitioners argued that the respondent had no power to regulate the extent of "chhat" bidis or to direct actions related to bad bidis, as these matters pertained to industrial disputes outside the purview of the Minimum Wages Act. The respondent contended that the clauses were necessary to make the fixation of minimum wages effective, as the absence of rules regarding "chhat" bidis deprived workers of their minimum wage rights. 3. Application of the Doctrine of Implied Power: The doctrine of implied power was central to the respondent's argument. The respondent argued that even though the Act did not expressly confer the power to prescribe the impugned clauses, such power could be implied to ensure the effective implementation of minimum wage provisions. The petitioners countered that the Act's scope was limited to fixing minimum wages and did not extend to modifying other terms of employment contracts. 4. Severability of the Invalid Clauses from the Valid Ones: Both parties agreed that if the impugned clauses were found ultra vires, they were severable from the valid clauses 1 and 2. Thus, the invalidity of clauses 3 to 7 would not affect the validity of clauses 1 and 2. Detailed Analysis: Validity of the Notification: The Supreme Court examined the scope and effect of the impugned clauses. Clauses 1 and 2, which prescribed revised minimum rates district-wise and provided for higher payment for certain types of bidis, were found to be clearly within the respondent's powers and were not disputed by the petitioners. However, clauses 3 to 7, which dealt with the rejection of "chhat" bidis and related procedures, were found to be outside the powers conferred by the Act. Authority to Prescribe Rules on "Chhat" Bidis: The Court noted that the prevailing practice allowed employers to reject sub-standard bidis without paying for them, leading to potential injustice for workers. However, it held that the Act did not authorize the respondent to regulate this practice through a notification under Section 5. The Act's focus was on fixing wages, not altering other terms of employment contracts. Doctrine of Implied Power: The Court acknowledged the principle that an enabling act implies the power to do everything necessary to carry out its purposes. However, it held that this doctrine could not be used to extend the respondent's powers beyond what was explicitly or implicitly authorized by the Act. The Act's definition of "wages" and its provisions indicated that it was concerned only with remuneration and not with other employment terms. Severability: Given that clauses 3 to 7 were found ultra vires, the Court declared them invalid. However, it upheld clauses 1 and 2 as valid and severable from the invalid clauses, ensuring that the notification's core purpose of fixing minimum wages remained intact. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeals Nos. 415 and 417, dismissing Civil Appeals Nos. 416 and 418. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the petitioners in Civil Appeals Nos. 415 and 417. The judgment clarified the limits of the respondent's authority under the Minimum Wages Act and reinforced the principle that implied powers cannot extend beyond the statute's clear intent.
|
