1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ to quash notification, dated 16 May, 1983, marked as exhibit A in the compilation annexed to the petition and purporting to be under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the “Minimum Wages Act or the Act.”
2. One of the beneficent legislations enacted by this State is the Minimum Wages Act of 1948. Briefly, it seeks to provide the machinery for fixing minimum wages in certain employments. The first step is that the employment concerned should be made scheduled which is done under S. 3 of the said Act. The employees in the employment which has become scheduled are then statutorily entitled to what is known as a “minimum wage”. The fixation of the minimum wage has to be done by the appropriate Government whether on its own or on the basis of advice received from a committee or sub-committees. The printing industry has a large base in the State and the number of workers attached thereto is considerably high. This industry was made a scheduled industry and the State Government appointed a committee under the Chairmanship of Vasant Chotelal Chavan, a Member of the then State Legislatively Assembly to go into the question and submit its recommendations. Sri Chavan presided over a committee consisting of six representatives of the workers and six of the owners of the printing presses. The Member-Secretary was the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. This committee visited various places in the State having printing presses, received memoranda from the employers and employees, recorded informations supplied by the persons questioned in response to a questionnaire drawn up by the committee, heard the parties and thereafter submitted a report. In this report the workers of different areas were drawn into four zones and eight categories and the minimum wage payable to each category was suggested. This report together with its recommendation was accepted and in pursuance thereto was issued the impugned notification, dated 16 May, 1983. Petitioners represent a trade union which had submitted a memorandum to the Chavan Committee. Petitioners' complaint is that the report is an unreasoned document and that many factors taken into consideration by the committee were extraneous to the object of fixation of a minimum wage. As a result of these infirmities the report should not have been accepted. The Government while recording its concurrence with the recommendations of the committee has not given any reasons for so doing. Petitioners seek a writ to quash the impugned notification and a consequential direction to the Government to issue a fresh notification having regard to the law applicable to the subject.
3. The State in its return denies that the report and the notification suffer from infirmities. Stress is laid upon the fact that the report is unanimous and the result of considerable time and effort spent by the committee to evolve a wage suitable to all the zones and after considering all the relevant factors.
4. I have been taken through the report which is in Marathi. It runs into a number of pages and a summary is made of the broad recommendations received from the different memorialists including petitioner 1. What is, however, significant is that the report nowhere gives reasons for the recommendations made by the committee to the Government. Sri Shinde representing the State contends that the committee had received a large number of representations, that it had visited cities where printing presses were located, had heard a number of concerned individuals and gone through the answers submitted by the people questioned vis-a-vis the questionnaire prepared by it. The report was unanimous and it could not, therefore, be said that due consideration had not been given by the committee to the task entrusted to it. Sri Deshmukh for the petitioners argues, and rightly so, that it is not enough for the committee to say that it had waded through a number of papers or questioned this or that person. What had to be established, and objectively so, was that it had taken into consideration the various view points and after an appraisal of the different submissions come to a conclusion, giving justification for the said conclusion. In support of the submission that even a minimum wage recommendation has to be justified, counsel has referred me to Woolcombers of India, Ltd. v. Woolcombers Workers' Union, [1973-I L.L.N 140]. The passage relied upon reads thus in Para. 9, at page 146:
“… The absence of reasons in support of the conclusions is indeed a serious flaw in the award. However, the award cannot be set aside simply on that score, if there is evidence on the record in support of the Tribunal's conclusion…”
In so far as the Chavan Committee report is concerned, the extract to which Sri Shinde has drawn my attention is more in the nature of a lament against the State Government not taking enough steps to protect the printing industry in the State rather than the need to evolve a minimum wage for those engaged in the industry. Paragraph 6.1 on page 49 of the report refers to the inability or unwillingness of the Government to link minimum wages with the factor of productivity. Paragraph 6.2 on the same page speaks of the unfair advantage which the industry competitors in other States have over it because of the inaction of the State Government. Paragraph 6.3 on page 50 refers to the abnormal rise in the special allowance, which is another way of label dearness allowance. These cannot be considered as reasons in support of the figures suggested by the Chavan Committee for acceptance as the minimum wage payable to employees in different regions and different categories. The concept of minimum wage does not appear to have been properly understood by the committee. At pages 24 and 25 appear Paras. 3.10 and 3.11 Therefrom one gets the impression that the committee has equated a minimum wage to a fair wage, if not the living wage. Paragraph 3.10 vis-a-vis the concept of minimum wage is full of contradictions. At one stage the concept of minimum wage is described as if it were a bare subsistence wage. Shortly thereafter, the paragraph speaks of the need to evolve the golden mean between the demands of labour, the profits of the industry, the propects of the said industry, etc., etc. This is hardly what the authorities have to say on the subject. In Hydro (Engineers) (Private), Ltd. v. Their workmen, [A.I.R 1969 S.C 182], the concept of minimum wage was considered and found to be thus:
“The fact that an employer might find it difficult to carry on his business on the basis of minimum wages is an irrelevant consideration is now a well-settled principle… While considering the distinction between minimum and fair wages this Court in the case of A.I.R 1962 S.C 12 observed that the policy of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, was to prevent employment of sweated labour in the general interest and so in prescribing the minimum wage rates, the capacity of the employer need not be considered as the State assumes that every employer must pay the minimum wage before he employs labour. It also observed that the Act contemplates that minimum wage rates must ensure not merely the mere physical need of the worker which would keep him just above starvation but must ensure for him not only his subsistence and that of his family but also preserve his efficiency as a workman. It should, therefore, provide, as the Fair Wages Committee appointed by the Government recommended, not merely for the bare subsistence of his life but for the preservation of the worker and so must provide for some measure of education, medical requirements and amenities.”
In Kamani Metals and Alloys v. Their workmen, [A.I.R 1967 S.C 1175], the apex Court had this to say on the distinction between the minimum wage, a fair wage and a living wage:
“To cope with these differences certain principles on which wages are fixed have been stated from time to time by this Court. Broadly speaking, the first principle is that there is a minimum wage which, in any event must be paid, irrespective of the extent of profits, the financial condition of the establishment or the availability of workmen on lower wages. This minimum wage is independent of the kind of industry and applies to all alike big or small. It sets the lowest limit below which wages cannot be allowed to sink in all humanity. The second principle is that wages must be fair, that is to say, sufficiently high to provide a standard family with food, shelter, clothing, medical care and education of children appropriate to the workman but not at a rate exceeding his wage earning capacity in the class of establishment to which he belongs. A fair wage is thus related to the earning capacity and the workload. It must, however, be realised that ‘fair wage’ is not ‘living wage’ by which is meant a wage which is sufficient to provide not only the essentials above mentioned but a fair measure of frugal comfort with an ability to provide for old age and evil days. Fair wage lies between the minimum wage, which must be paid in any event, and the living wage, which is the goal.”
Thus considered the Chavan Committee has merely set out the different claims made by various unions and the representatives of the employers. Why it preferred one set of view or the other has not been explained. In fact the very concept of minimum wage has been misunderstood by the committee. The minimum requirement of food, clothing, medicine and housing of a press worker has not been taken into consideration by the committee. In the absence of such a consideration of the requirements which go into the making of a minimum wage, it cannot be said that the committee has formulated what can be understood as a “minimum wage” as contemplated by the Act. Sri Shinde submits that the committee comprised the representatives of the workers and that excepting for the first petitioner, no one else amongst the employees has come forth to challenge the task undertaken by the committee. The fact that the workers' representatives have been remiss in the discharge of their duties cannot be a reason for sustaining the report on the assumption that they must have been on guard to protect the interest of the workers. The unanimity in the view of the members is again no reason for sustaining what is an ipse dixit. Another argument advanced by Sri Shinde is that the acceptance of the report was made way back in the year 1983 and years have passed for which reason the notification should not be quashed. The petition was filed in the year 1983 and it is not the fault of the petitioners that the petition could not be heard until this late date. A report which is unreasoned and which proceeds on basic errors vis-a-vis the concept of minimum wage cannot be sustained and hence the order:
The petition succeeds. Rule in terms of prayer Cls. (a) and (b) of the petition made absolute. The Chavan Committee Report and the notification based thereon have to continue until a revision is made by the State Government which be done as early as possible and which has become overdue having regard to passage of time. Cost in the proceedings as incurred. Rule in the above terms made absolute.