- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Chakradharpur Biri And Tobacco Merchants' Association And Ors. v. State Of Bihar And Ors.
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners challenged the Notification dated 21.12.1995 which revised the minimum wages for workmen rolling Biri in the Biri Industry under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. They also sought to quash the Notification dated 28.7.1989 issued by the State Government constituting the Advisory Board under Section 7 of the Minimum Wages Act, alleging that the Board was not validly constituted in relation to the Biri Industry. The petitioners contended that an unauthorized person, Subhas Bajpayee, attended an Advisory Board meeting in place of Shiv Prasad Gupta, who was originally appointed as a member representing the manufacturers. Further, the petitioners argued that the number of independent members appointed exceeded the statutory limit under Section 9 of the Act, rendering the Advisory Board's constitution and subsequent wage revision Notification illegal. The State Government countered by clarifying the total composition of the Advisory Board and explaining the nomination of Subhas Bajpayee as valid. The matter was contested in a writ petition before the Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Advisory Board constituted under Section 7 and Section 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, was validly constituted with respect to the representation and the number of independent members.
- Whether the attendance and participation of Subhas Bajpayee, nominated by a non-member, at the Advisory Board meeting vitiates the Board's recommendation on minimum wages.
- Whether any defect in the Advisory Board's recommendation affects the validity of the State Government's Notification revising minimum wages.
- Whether principles applicable to quasi-judicial bodies regarding unauthorized participants apply to the Advisory Board under the Minimum Wages Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The Advisory Board was not validly constituted because Subhas Bajpayee, who was not an authorized member, attended the meeting instead of the appointed member Shiv Prasad Gupta.
- The number of independent members appointed (11) exceeded the one-third limit prescribed under Section 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, making the Board's constitution illegal.
- The Advisory Board's recommendation is vitiated by the presence of an unauthorized person, and thus the Notification revising minimum wages is illegal and inoperative.
- Reliance on a Calcutta High Court decision stating that the presence of a stranger in a quasi-judicial body's meeting vitiates its decision under the principles of natural justice.
Respondent's Arguments
- The total number of members in the Advisory Board was 41, and the appointment of 11 independent members did not violate the one-third limit under Section 9.
- The name "Shyama Charan Gupta" mentioned in the attendance was a mistake and should have been "Shiv Prasad Gupta," the Managing Director of Shyam Biri Works Pvt. Ltd.
- If there was a change in the Managing Director, the new Managing Director could nominate a representative to attend the meeting, making the attendance of Subhas Bajpayee valid.
- The Advisory Board's recommendations are not binding on the State Government, as established by precedents, and thus any irregularity in the Board's composition or recommendation does not invalidate the Notification.
- The principles applicable to quasi-judicial bodies do not apply here since the Advisory Board is not a quasi-judicial body but only an advisory entity.
- The petitioners had previously acquiesced to the Advisory Board's jurisdiction and only raised objections belatedly after the Notification was issued.
- The revision of wages was not arbitrary but based on relevant price indices at the time.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| (1969) 3 SCC 84 | State Government is not bound by the Advisory Committee's recommendations under the Minimum Wages Act. | Confirmed that the Advisory Board's recommendations are only advisory and non-binding, so defects in the Advisory Board do not invalidate the Notification. |
| (1985) 3 SCC 594 | Same principle as above regarding non-binding nature of Advisory Board recommendations. | Reinforced that the State Government may act independently of the Advisory Board's recommendations. |
| 1981 LIC 294 | Similar principle on the non-binding nature of Advisory Board recommendations. | Supported the reasoning that Advisory Board recommendations do not have binding effect on the State Government. |
| 1993 (2) BLJ 193 (Governing Body of Baba Bhut Nath v. Bihar University) | Principle relating to formation of ad hoc committees by dissolving constituted governing bodies under statutory provisions. | The Court found this precedent not applicable to the present case. |
| 1958 BLJR 820 (Nageshwar Prasad Singh v. Rai Bahadur Kashinath Singh) | Legislature’s prescribed procedure must be strictly followed; deviation renders action invalid. | The Court held this principle inapplicable because the Advisory Board was validly constituted and the petitioner’s objections were belated. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the petitioners' claim that the Advisory Board was improperly constituted due to the unauthorized attendance of Subhas Bajpayee and the alleged excess of independent members. It accepted the State Government’s explanation that the total membership was 41, making the appointment of 11 independent members compliant with the one-third limit under Section 9. The Court found the misnaming of "Shyama Charan Gupta" instead of "Shiv Prasad Gupta" to be a clerical error, and even if the Managing Director had changed, the new Managing Director's nomination of a representative was lawful.
The Court emphasized settled law that the Advisory Board’s recommendations are advisory only and not binding on the State Government. Therefore, any irregularity in the Board’s composition or conduct does not invalidate the Notification revising minimum wages. The Court distinguished the present case from decisions concerning quasi-judicial bodies, noting that the Advisory Board does not exercise quasi-judicial functions, and thus principles applicable to quasi-judicial bodies do not apply.
Further, the Court observed that the petitioners had not challenged the Board’s jurisdiction or composition at the appropriate time and had acquiesced to it until after the Notification was issued, making the objections belated and lacking substance. The Court also found no arbitrariness in the wage revision, which was based on relevant economic indices.
Holding and Implications
The writ petition is rejected.
The Court upheld the validity of the Notification dated 21.12.1995 revising minimum wages for Biri Industry workers and the constitution of the Advisory Board under the Minimum Wages Act. The decision confirms that the Advisory Board’s recommendations are advisory and not binding on the State Government, and minor procedural irregularities or nomination issues do not invalidate the State’s actions. No new precedent was established; the ruling primarily resolves the parties’ dispute and affirms existing legal principles regarding the Advisory Board’s role and composition.
P.K Deb, J.:— In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the Notification dated 21.12.1995 as contained in Annexure-1 by which the minimum rates of wages to be paid to the workmen who roll Biri in Biri Industry have been revised under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Further prayer has been made for quashing the Notification dated 28.7.1989 contained in Annexure-2 as issued by the State Government in constituting the Advisory Board u/s 7 of the Minimum Wages Act on the allegation that the same had not been validly constituted so far as Biri Industry is concerned.
2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that in the Advisory Committee, one Shiv Prasad Gupta was appointed on behalf of the manufacturer of Biri Industry as Member of the Advisory Board but in the subsequent meeting this Shiv Prasad Gupta did not take part as contained in Annexure-3 and one Subhas Bajpayee attended the meeting as being nominated by one Shyama Charan Gupta for and on behalf of Shyam Biri Works Union, Sahebganj. The contention of the petitioner is that this attending of meeting by Subhas Bajpayee while taking decision regarding the revision of Minimum wages had no authority and as such the Advisory report and recommendation is vitiated by law. This Subhash Bajpayee was nominated by one Shyama Charan Gupta as is revealed from Annexure-3 but Shyama Charan Gupta was never a member of the Board as per Annexure-2, Notification. Further contention of the petitioner is that as per Section 9 of the Act, independent members cannot exceed ⅓rd of the total members. According to the petitioner, 15 members were from the employer side and the same makes a total number of 30 and out of the same only ⅓rd i.e not exceeding 10 can be made independent members, but here in the present case, 11 independent members have been appointed. Thus, provision of Section 9 of the Act has been vitiated and hence the whole Notification dated 21.12.1995 deciding the revision of Minimum wages for the workers of Biri Industry is illegal and inoperative in the eye of law. In the counter affidavit, it has been clarified that total numbers as envisaged u/s 9 of the Act consisting of whole body i.e 15 + 15 + 11 which makes a total of 41 and its ⅓rd is definitely higher than 11 and as such there is no illegality in constitution of the Advisory body by nominating 11 independent members. Submission of Mr. Tapen Sen, on behalf of the petitioner has got no substance in that matter.
3. Regarding nomination of Subhas Bajpayee by Shyama Charan Gupta as contained in Annexure-3 while attending the meeting has been properly explained in the counter affidavit. The name of Shyama Charan Gupta was wrongly mentioned rather it ought to have been Shiv Prasad Gupta, who happens to be the Managing Director of Shyam Biri Works Pvt. Ltd. That Shiv Prasad Gupta was appointed as member of the Advisory Committee in the capacity of being Managing Director of Shyam Biri Works. If there be no mistake in Annexure-3 in quoting the name of Shiv Prasad Gupta then also the fact remains that if by that time, the Managing Director of Shyam Biri Works Pvt. is changed then the changed Managing Director can nominate a member for and on behalf of to attend the meeting of the Advisory Committee. Moreover, it is a settled principle of law as reported in (1969) 3 SCC 84; (1985) 3 SCC 594 and 1981 LIC 294 that the State Government is not bound by the recommendation of the rate shown in the draft approval and the recommendation made by the Advisory Committee stands only as recommendation and not binding on the State Government. In that view of the matter, if there is some lacuna in the recommendation of the Advisory Board the same does not vitiate the Notification in revising the minimum wages.
4. It appears that the said very Notification has been challenged before this Court in CWJC No. 771 of 1996 (R) by the Hotel Management regarding the revising of Minimum Wages for the employees or the workers of the Hotels and Restaurants and the same very points have been raised regarding the constitution of the Advisory Board and its decision/recommendation and the same has been turned down by a Single Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 9th September, 1996.
5. By relying on a decision of the Calcutta High Court, Mr. Tapen Sen, as reported in 74 CWN page-52 submitted to the effect that where a stranger is invited to attend a meeting of a quasi judicial body and the decision has been made in the presence of the stranger, although he might not have actively participated in the decision making then also the said decision should be turned down of the quasi judicial body as being vitiated under the principal of natural justice and under the provision of law.
6. That case related to constitution of the statutory body of the Regional Transport Authority under the Motor Vehicles Act. That was a statutory body and had the functioning of a quasi judicial nature and the decision is binding on the parties of a meeting held by the quasi judicial body. The same principle is not applicable in the present case as it has already been mentioned that the Advisory body as constituted u/s 9 of the Minimum Wages Act has no functioning of quasi judicial nature and their recommendation/decision is not binding on the State Government but the same remains only a recommendation and nothing more than that.
7. On the same line, Mr. Sen has also referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court as reported in 1993 (2) BLJ 193 (Governing Body of Baba Bhut Nath v. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur), wherein the question was regarding formation of ad hoc committee by dissolving the constitued Governing Body under the Bihar Universities Act.
8. The present case has get no bearing with the decision as mentioned above.
9. Mr. Sen has also referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court as reported in 1958 BLJR, 820 (Nageshwar Prasad Singh v. Rai Bahadur Kashinath Singh) wherein the principle was enunciated that when Legislature wants by statute to act a particular thing in a particular manner any deviation from that procedure would make the action invalid in the eye of law. In the present case, the said principle is not attracted as I have already mentioned that the State wanted formation of an Advisory body to advise the State Government after survey of the matters in the presence of the representative of both the parties and the independent members regarding the revision of minimum wages. Advisory body was formed and recommendation was also made and only question was with regard to the presence of a person nominated by a member in attending a meeting of the Advisory board. Such nomination cannot be said to be wholly illegal and the same had not been challenged previously and only after decision being made by the State Government and a notification was made, then the challenge has been made and particularly in the writ petition, no such proper statement was made and only at the time of argument, Mr. Sen has pointed out such defect. Even if that defect remains, when the petitioner had already submitted to the jurisdiction of that Advisory Board without challenge, the same cannot be agitated at a belated stage. Moreover, on going through the rates of revision, I do not find that there is any arbitrariness rather the same has been done considering the price index prevalent at the relevant time.
10. There is no force in this writ petition and hence the same is rejected.
Alert