Minimum Wages Act : Karnataka HC Upholds Wage Revisions Notified By Govt In 37 Sectors [Read Judgment]

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the decision of the state government to revise the amount of minimum wages to be paid to employees in 37 sectors of employment. The court held that "It cannot be said that while fixing the rates of minimum wages the state government has exceeded the jurisdiction vested within it or the action is 'ultra vires' to the provisions of the act. By the impugned notifications challenged by the employers, the rates of minimum wages were approximately enhanced by Rs.8000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month after the lapse of 4 to 5 years with effect from December 2017. In case of Doctors, the enhancement was more as it was fixed at Rs.40,908.40/- per month with effect from 30th December 2017 A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Mohammad Nawaz also allowed an appeal filed by several Unions challenging the decision of the government to withdraw three final notifications pertaining to Textile (silk) Industry, Spinning Mills Industry and Cloth Dyeing and Printing Industry, issued on December 30, 2017. The Court held that the vested right of employees under the final notifications cannot be taken away by simply withdrawing those notifications. The bench decided a batch of appeals filed by Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association, Karnataka Employers Association who are establishments under the Karnataka Shops and Establishment Act. A petition filed by All India Trade Union Congress, Karnataka Drugs and Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, automobile dealers/industries and others. Over 37 appeals were before the court. The challenge in the appeals were to an order of the single judge passed on March 29, 2019, which had held as valid the state governments notifications issued in exercise of powers under section 5 of the Minimum wages Act. The petitioners primarily raised contentions pertaining to not adopting option under clause (a) of sub section (1) of section 5 and claimed that the exercise of revision of wages was discriminatory. The advisory board set up by the government to be illegally constituted and alleged illegality in the proceedings of the board. Discrimination between categories of employment and that the rates fixed were higher than rates fixed in other states. Also that the zones have been fixed arbitrarily, the petitioners claimed. Government's stand: The writ appeals preferred by the employers are a legal ploy adopted by them to delay the payment of reasonable minimum wages to millions of workers in Karnataka and their intention is to thwart the efforts of the State Government to achieve its constitutional obligations/objects of social and economic justice. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Workmen represented by Secretary vs. Reptakos Brett and Company Limited and another and Unichoyi (U) and others vs State of Kerala to point out that minimum wages in respect of scheduled employment have been fixed separately for three zones and wage structure is arrived at on the basis of the scientific research and empirical data collected by the State agencies in April, 2015. Further, it was submitted that as regards 37 draft notifications, as many as 521 objections were received and those objections were considered in the meetings of the Advisory Board held on seven different dates in relation to various industries. He pointed out that wherever needed, voting was done in the meetings of the Advisory Board. The bench while reviving the withdrawn notifications said: The vested right created in the employees to get the wages as per the rates fixed under the three final notifications could not be taken away without revising the rates as provided under section 3 read with section 5 the said Act of 1948. Hence, the action of withdrawal of the said three notifications is ultra virus the provisions of the said Act of 1948 as well as the said Act of 1897 and is liable to be set aside (Para 59, page 297) In regards to the contention of not adopting option under clause (a) of sub section (1) of section 5 was discriminatory, the court said: The word 'either' used in sub-section (1) of Section-5 clearly indicates that there are two options provided to the Appropriate Government under clause (a) and (b). The Appropriate Government has a discretion either to take recourse to clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 5. Under clause (a), the Appropriate Government has an option for appointing a Committee or sub-Committees to hold an enquiry and advise the Government in respect of fixation of minimum wages or its revision. Ultimately, the power is vested with the Government to fix the rates of minimum wages. By appointing/constituting the Committees under clause (a) or by following the procedure under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section-5, all that the Government gets...

Minimum Wages Act : Karnataka HC Upholds Wage Revisions Notified By Govt In 37 Sectors [Read Judgment]

Mustafa Plumber

When the rates of the minimum wages are fixed by the Appropriate Government, a writ Court cannot sit over in appeal, the bench observed.

Tags