V.K. Gupta, J.
1. Learned counsel for the parties agree that this petition can be disposed of today and need not be admitted to hearing.
2. The petitioner's grievance is that inspite of the issuance of notification on March 24, 1969 vide SRO No. 129 of the same date, the benefit of the notification has not been given to them from the date it came into force and that the respondent No. 3 vide the impugned order passed on January 4, 1991 made the notification applicable with-effect from January 1, 1991, when in fact it ought to have been made applicable from March 24, 1989. Mr. B. Singh learned G.A., while appearing for the respondents and arguing the matter today has limited his objections only to the point that it was not clear to the respondent No. 3 as to which particular department had issued the notification vide SRO 129 because as many as three Departments viz, Labour, Food and Supplies and Transport were mentioned at the top of the Notification. Mr. B. Singh had no other defence to offer.
3. I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Under Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the appropriate Govt. has been given the power to fix the minimum rates of wages or to revise the minimum rates of wages so fixed in respect of any scheduled employment and for this purpose has been given the powers to appoint as many committees and sub-committees as it considers necessary to hold enquiries and advice it in respect of such fixation or revision, as the case may be, or notification in the Official Gazette, publish its proposals for the information of persons likely to be affected thereby and specify a date, not less than two months from the date of the notification, on which the proposals will be taken into consideration.
5. Vide Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the aforesaid Act, the appropriate Govt. has accordingly been given the power to fix or revise the minimum rates of wages by publication of a notification for this purpose in the official gazettee and it has been clearly mentioned in this sub-section that this notification shall come into force from the date that is specified in the notification itself or on the expiry of three months from the date of its issue, if not specifically mentioned in the notification.
6. Vide Section 2(b) of the Act appropriate Govt. properly defined to mean Central Govt. in relation to any scheduled employment carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or a railway administration etc. and the State Government in relation to any other scheduled employment.
7. Neither in their objections nor in the course of arguments, today the respondents have any where pointed out any constitutional or legal or any other defect in the aforesaid notification or that it suffers from any constitutional or legal vice or infirmity. The notification has been duly issued under and in terms of these specific provisions contained in Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and conforms to all the requirements prescribed therefor. Whether it is issued by the Labour Department or the Forest Department or the Transport Department is not for any one to bother about as long as it is issued by the Appropriate Government. Appropriate Government in this case as observed earlier is the State Government and it is not the case of the respondent No. 3 that the notification in question was not issued by the State Government. In fact it was very foolish on the part of the respondent No. 3 to have taken a stand in this Court that he was not sure as to which particular department had issued the notification. Perhaps this defence was taken out of, either ignorance or sheer desparation because the respondent No. 3 did not appear to have any other defence available to him in relation to the order impugned in this petition.
8. The notification having been validly issued as held earlier by me above, therefore it was incumbent upon everyone including the respondents herein to have strictly complied with and followed it in letter and spirit. The notification clearly mentions that it was to be enforced and complied with effect from the date of its publication in the Govt. gazette and admittedly it was published in the Govt. gazette dated March 24, 1989. Because of the mandatory and unambiguous date of applicability as mentioned in the notification itself and because of the clear provisions contained in Section 5 of the Act, there was no scope for anyone to suspect about its applicability from any other date. Respondent No. 3 has therefore committed patent illegality in applying the aforesaid notification with effect from January 1, 1991 vide the order dated January 4, 1991. Respondent No. 3 who is a mere functionary of the State Govt. had no power to do so.
9. This petition is accordingly allowed and a writ of certiorari is issued whereby the impugned order dated January 4, 1991 issued by the respondent No. 3 is quashed and set aside and a further writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to treat the petitioner as beneficiaries under notification SRO 129 dated March 24, 1989 with effect from March 24, 1989 and extend and pay all benefits accruing therefrom to the petitioners and all others concerned from that particular date viz March 24, 1989.
The petitioner is allowed with costs assessed at Rs. 2,000/- to be borne by the respondent No. 3.