Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2389 (MAD)

Poshak Industries v. State of Tamil Nadu

2012-06-12

M.VENUGOPAL

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari in calling for the records pertaining to the impugned Notification of the respondent in G.O. (2D) No.74 Labour and Employment dated 10.12.2004 and to quash the same. 2. The petitioner is engaged in the export of readymade garments and having factory at No.15, Race Course Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032 and units at No.8, Vijayaragava Lane, Vijayaragava Road, T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. According to the petitioner, the nature of tailoring industry, particularly involved in the export of readymade garments, is such that it requires a different consideration than that of the other industries, particularly the irony in the minimum rates of wages fixed for the various employees of the tailoring industry is that in some category of employment by the proper productive of piece rate, an employee gets a very high salary than that of the minimum rates of wages provided thereon. 3. When the revision of minimum wages was introduced vide G.O. Ms.No.40 dated 18.1.1994, the same was challenged by various persons engaged in tailoring industries and export of readymade garments on various grounds including the crucial ground of not constituting a Committee as per Section 5(1)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act and this Court granted stay in W.M.P. No.27925 of 1995 in W.P. No.17678 of 1995. 4. According to the petitioner, the competent Authority, while refixing the minimum wages, had failed to take into account as to the effects of globalization in the Textile industry and the market economy. The raise in minimum wages of few categories like the Helper and Button and Khaja Operator is unworkable. The rates of minimum wages had transformed the price rates linked with productivity etc. 5. This Court, in W.P. No.9319 of 2006 etc. batch, when "G.O. (2D) No.74 Labour and Employment dated 10.12.2004 was challenged in respect of the Government fixing the minimum wages for the employees in tailoring industry", dismissed the said writ petitions, by a common order dated 22.1.2008, stating that earlier, the Government has fixed the minimum wages through G.O.(D) No.40, Labour and Employment Department dated 18.1.1994 and that the said Government order along with the connected Government Orders were challenged before this Court in W.P. Nos.10126 and 10127 of 1992 etc. and a Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 12.12.1998, upheld the said Government Orders and in view of the fact that the subject matter in issue was covered earlier by the Division Bench of this Court, the writ petitions were dismissed. 6. In paragraphs 38 and 49 of the order dated 12.12.1998 passed in W.P. Nos.10126 of 1992 etc., it is observed as follows:- " 38. From the above it follows that once the appropriate Government decides to follow Section 5(1)(b), the question of appointing of Committee or Sub-Committees or its members is not required and the appropriate Government under Section 5(1)(b) could publish its proposal to fix the minimum or revise the minimum rates of wages. 49. In the light of the above pronouncements, the so called deficiency either in the Constitution of the Committee or in the holding sittings or hearing or affording of opportunity or the alleged irregularities in the Committee will not vitiate the report nor the notifications could be struck down on that score as has been held by the Apex Court in AIR 1962 Supreme Court 12, 1976(1) LLJ page 1, AIR 1970 Supreme Court Page 2042 and AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1391. The mere technicalities which are sought to be urged in each one of the Writ Petitions challenging individual notifications issued in respect of an industry or establishment cannot be a ground to avoid or strike down the notification. In view of the consistent and repeated pronouncements of the Apex Court we are unable to entertain technical objections or alleged irregularities in the appointment of Committee or in the procedure adopted as a ground to avoid the notifications." 7. Also on 19.9.2011, this Court, in W.P. No.10722 to 10725 of 2005, dismissed the said writ petitions, holding that impugned Notification in G.O.(2D) No.74, Labour and Employment dated 10.12.2004, fixing the minimum wages for the employees in tailoring industry , was confirmed by this Court as per order dated 22.1.2008 in the batch of writ petitions in W.P. No.9319 of 2006 etc. batch, which applies to the present batch of writ petitions. Following the order dated 22.1.2008 passed in W.P. No.9319 of 2006 etc. batch, which applies to the present batch of writ petitions. Following the order dated 22.1.2008 passed in W.P. No.9319 of 2006 etc. batch and also similar order dated 19.9.2011 passed by this Court in W.P. No.10722 to 10725 of 2005, this Court dismisses the present writ petition, since the matter in issue is covered by the earlier pronouncements of this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made an endorsement in the impleading petition in M.P. No.1 of 2012 and the vacate stay petition in M.P.S.R. No.50153 of 2012 that she is withdrawing the impleading petition and vacate stay petitions. Recording the same, the said petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are also dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.