Summary
A hospital association challenged a minimum-wage revision committee because several employer representatives were themselves employees of hospitals. The Court held that Section9 permitted such nominees to represent their employers, found equal representation and a sufficient connection with the sector, and upheld the committee.
Issues
- Whether only owners could represent employers on a Section9 minimum-wage committee.
- Whether the challenged hospital nominees adequately represented employers’ interests.
Provisions considered
- Section9, Minimum Wages Act, 1948Requires equal employer and employee representation, with independent persons not exceeding one-third and an independent chair; it does not confine employer nominees to owners themselves. (¶ 22–27)
Held
- An employee nominated as an employer’s representative participates in that representative capacity, not in an individual employee capacity. A person familiar with the organisation and subject can competently defend the employer’s interests; the relevant employers had not objected to these nominations. (¶ 26–27)
- The committee had13representatives on each side. The challenged nominees had a nexus with the represented organisations and included experienced human-resources personnel. Applying Tiffin’s Barytes, personal engagement for profit was unnecessary where the requisite sectoral connection existed. (¶ 28–30)
- No illegality was shown on the sole ground raised against the committee’s composition. Its role was recommendatory, with final wage notification belonging to the Government; the Court did not fix any wage rate in this judgment. (¶¶ 8, 28, 31–32)
Result
Civil appeal dismissed and connected special leave petition dismissed; High Court decision and committee constitution upheld.