LABOUR LAW II MEMORIAL Final

K.K. Industries vs.
Government of Jharkhand & Another
BEFORE THE
HONBLE JHARKHAND HIGH COURT AT RANCHI
WRIT PETITION NO ./2017
Under
Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, 1950
IN THE MATTER OF
K.K. Industries.......................................................................................(Petitioner)
vs.
Government of Jharkhand & Another ............................................(Respondent)
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE JHARKHAND HIGH COURT AT RANCHI

DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
-: MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:-
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY
AMIT KUMAR
SEC.- B, ROLL NO.- 313
SUBJECT - LABOUR LAW - II
VIIITH SEMESTER, NUSRL, RANCHI
Memorial on Behalf of PetitionerPage 1

K.K. Industries vs. Government of Jharkhand & Another
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...3-5.

1.1 Case Laws ............................................................................................................3.
1.2 Statutes and Guidelines ........................................................................................4.
1.3 Books & Websites ...4.
1.4 List of Abbreviations.............................................................................................5.
2. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION......................................................................6.
3. STATEMENT OF FACTS .....................................................................................7.
4. STATEMENT OF ISSUES .....................................................................................8.
5. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................9.
6. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................10-16
7. PRAYER .............................................................................................................. 17.
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASE LAWS
1. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kailash Chand Mahajan............................1992 Lab IC 1371
2. A. Janardhana v. Union of India..(1983-II-LLJ-175) (SC)
3. Bijay Cotton Mills Limited v. State of Ajmer..(1955-I-LLJ- 129)

4. Ramakrishna Ramnath v. State of Maharashtra..(1963-II-LLJ- 548)
5. Bijay Cotton Mills Limited v. State of Ajmer .....(1955-I-LLJ- 129)
6. Ramakrishna Ramnath v. State of Maharashtra......................................(1963-II-LLJ- 548)
7. Bijoy Krishna Paul v. State of Assam and Nagaland............................... (1970-I-LLJ-584)
8. V.K. Samajam v. State of Kerala.............................................................(1971-II-LLJ-252)
9. Malayalam Plantations Limited v. State of Kerala ...(1976-I-LLJ-114)

10. Aspinwal and Co. Ltd. V, State of Karnataka...........................................1986 (69) FJR 15
11. H.B. Verma v. Union of India.....................................................................(1993-I-LLJ-39)
12. Chandra Bhavan Boarding and Lodging v. State of Mysore...................(1970-II-LLJ-403)
13. T.R. Sukumaran v. State of Jharkhand......................................................AIR 1964 SC 719
STATUTES & GUIDELINES
1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. The Minimum Wages Act, 1948
BOOKS
1. Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, Sixth Edn., Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa,
Nagpur, 2010.
2. Basu, Durga Das, Commentary on the Constitution of India, Eighth Edition, Lexis
Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur 2009.
3. Misra, S.N. Labour & Industrial Laws, 27th Edn., Central Law Publications,
Allahabad, 2014.
WEBSITES
1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.lexis-nexisindia.com
3. www.indiankanoon.com
4. www.westlawindia.com
ABBREVIATIONS
1. & - And
2. AIR - All India Reporter
3. Anr - Another
4. Cl - Clause
5. Edn. - Edition
6. Ors. - Others
7. P. - Page
8. Pp. - Pages
9. v. - Versus

10. Vol. - Volume
11. SC - Supreme Court
12. SCC - Supreme Court Case
13. Honble - Honourable
14. Sec. - Section
15. Co. - Company
16. Pvt. - Private
17. LLJ - Labour Law Journal
18. Lab IC - Labour Law Journal
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel for the Petitioner has approached to this Honble Jharkhand High Court at
Ranchi under Article 2261 of the Indian Constitution, 1950 to hear the present matter and
adjudge accordingly.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1 226.Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.-(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court
shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or
authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them,
for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person
may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause
of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government
or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is
made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without-
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim
order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of
such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favor such order has been made or the
counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date
on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later,
or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on
which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry
of that period, or , as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated.
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the
Supreme court by clause (2) of Article 32

The petitioner most respectfully and humbly submits the facts of the case as under:
K.K. Industry is a beedy supplier since 1991.

There were 200 employees working in that industry.
The State Govt. of Jharkhand revised the minimum wages of beedy workers by notifying
after consultation with the Advisory Board on January 2006.

This revision was challenged by the K.K.Industries alleging that the act of revision was
arbitrary.
Hence the present petition.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. WHETHER THE WRIT-PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE COURT OR

NOT?
II. WHETHER THE ACT OF REVISION IN THE MINIMUM WAGES WAS

ARBITRARY OR NOT?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

NOT?

It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that the writ-petition is maintainable in the
present Court.
In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kailash Chand Mahajan 2, at page 1403 wherein it
is held by the Supreme Court as follows: "The contention of Mr. Shanti Bhusan that the failure to
implead Chauhan will be fatal to the writ petition does not seem to be correct. He relies on State
of Kerala v. Rafia Rahim, (FB).
Therefore, the writ petition is maintainable in the Court.
III. WHETHER THE ACT OF REVISION IN THE MINIMUM WAGES WAS

ARBITRARY OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that the act of revision in the minimum
wages was arbitrary.
The impugned notification ex facie shows that there was no consultation with the Advisory
Board as required under Section 5(2) of the Act. The very reading of the impugned
notification shows that the first respondent, the Government of Jharkhand, has not consulted
the Advisory Board.
Hence, the act of revision in the minimum wages was arbitrary.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

NOT?
2 1992 Lab IC 1371

It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that the writ-petition is maintainable in the
present Court.
In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kailash Chand Mahajan 3, at page 1403 wherein it
is held by the Supreme Court as follows:
"The contention of Mr. Shanti Bhusan that the failure to implead Chauhan will be fatal to
the writ petition does not seem to be correct. He relies on State of Kerala v. Rafia Rahim, (FB).
That case related to admission to medical college whereby invalidating the selection vitally
affected those who had been selected already. Equally, the case Padmaraj Samrendra v. State of
Bihar, (FB) has no application. This was a case where the plea was founded in Article 14 and
arbitrary selection. The selectees were vitally affected. The plea that the decision of the court in
the absence of Chauhan would be violative of principle of natural justice as any adverse decision
would affect him is not correct.
Also held in the case of A. Janardhana v. Union of India4 it is held as under at p-188 '.....
Approaching the matter from this angle, jt may be noticed that relief is sought only
against the Union of India and the concerned Ministry and not against any individual nor any
seniority is claimed by any one individual against another particular individual and, therefore,
even if technically the direct recruits were not before the court, the petition is not likely to fail on
that ground'."
In Bijay Cotton Mills Limited v. State of Ajmer 5, the Supreme Court observed as follows at page
131:
"As regards the procedure for the fixing of minimum wages, the 'appropriate
Government' has undoubtedly been given very large powers. But it has to take into
3 1992 Lab IC 1371
4 (1983-II-LLJ-175) (SC)
5 (1955-I-LLJ- 129)

consideration, before fixing wages, the advice of the committee if one is appointed, or the
representation on his proposals made by persons who are likely to be affected thereby.
Consultation with advisory bodies has been made obligatory on all occasions of revision of
minimum wages."
In Ramakrishna Ramnath v. State of Maharashtra 6, at page 561. the Bombay High Court
observed as follows:
"The whole idea behind specifying a date as required by Section 5(1)(b) is that the
person likely to be affected by the draft proposals should be in a position to make a
representation against the draft proposals and know till what date they have to make it, so that
the Government is precluded from taking a decision upon the draft proposals until the expiry of
the date specified. There is, however, nothing in the statute which requires that Government
should consider it on that very date and not thereafter."
In the present case the hike in the wages is three times the earlier wage rate for the industry
under the Minimum Wages Act. The act of revision is arbitrary as the raise in the wages is three
times the earlier wage and it is not at all reasonable. The writ petition is very much maintainable
as this concern the industry. It violates the basic right of the industry as the raise in the rate of
wages is not reasonable.
II. WHETHER THE ACT OF REVISION IN THE MINIMUM WAGES WAS

ARBITRARY OR NOT?
6 (1963-II-LLJ- 548)

It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that the act of revision in the minimum wages
was arbitrary.
The impugned notification ex facie shows that there was no consultation with the Advisory
Board as required under Section 5(2) of the Act. The very reading of the impugned notification
shows that the first respondent, the Government of Jharkhand, has not consulted the Advisory
Board. In this connection counsel would like to invite the attention of the court to the proviso to
Section 5(2) of the Act to show that where the appropriate Government proposes to revise the
minimum rate of wages by the mode specified in Cl (b) of Sub-section (1),
the appropriate Government shall consult the Advisory Board also.
Counsel would like to stress the point that consultation shall be made before the final notification
is made by the first respondent, after the receipt of all the objections till the last date. It is
contended that the consultation with the advisory board is mandatory as per the proviso to
Section 5(2) of the Act before the final notification is issued revising the minimum wages of the
beedy workers.
In support of the said contention, counsel for the petitioner would like to cite the following
rulings:
In Bijay Cotton Mills Limited v. State of Ajmer 7, the Supreme Court observed as follows at page
131:
"As regards the procedure for the fixing of minimum wages, the 'appropriate
Government' has undoubtedly been given very large powers. But it has to take into
consideration, before fixing wages, the advice of the committee if one is appointed, or the
representation on his proposals made by persons who are likely to be affected thereby.
Consultation with advisory bodies has been made obligatory on all occasions of revision of
minimum wages."
7 (1955-I-LLJ- 129)

In Ramakrishna Ramnath v. State of Maharashtra 8, at page 561. The Bombay High Court
observed as follows:
"The whole idea behind specifying a date as required by Section 5(1) (b) is that the
person likely to be affected by the draft proposals should be in a position to make a
representation against the draft proposals and know till what date they have to make it, so that
the Government is precluded from taking a decision upon the draft proposals until the expiry of
the date specified. There is, however, nothing in the statute which requires that Government
should consider it on that very date and not thereafter."
In Bijoy Krishna Paul v. State of Assam and Nagaland 9, it is observed by the Division Bench of
the Assam High Court as follows (Pp. 586-587)
"...it is necessary to remember that the object of the minimum wages legislation is to fix
minimum rates of wages for the Scheduled industry and in that behalf these wage legislations
are more or less reasonable restrictions imposed in the way of the employers in conducting their
business. In this view of the matter, an elaborate procedure has been prescribed under the
Minimum Wages Act, which has got to be strictly complied with before minimum wages of this
description are fixed. It is noteworthy that if the employer, who is under legal obligation to pay
the prescribed minimum wages to his employees in accordance with the provisions of the Act,
disobeys these directions, he can be prosecuted under the law. It is, therefore, clearly necessary
that the Government in making these notifications, for prescribing the wages under the Act,
punctiliously follows the letter of the law and strictly complied with all the procedures laid down
in the Act."
In V.K. Samajam v. State of Kerala10, at pages 256-257, it is observed by the Kerala High Court
as follows:
8 (1963-II-LLJ- 548)
9 (1970-I-LLJ-584)
10 (1971-II-LLJ-252)

"A Division Bench of this Court in Vasudevan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1960 Ker 67, held
that Section 5(1) (b) is mandatory and its non-compliance would vitiate the fixation of the rates
of minimum wages. The decision of this Court, referred to above, is binding on me. I also agree
with the view that Section 5(1) (b) of the Act is mandatory and its non-compliance would vitiate
the fixation of revision of minimum wages if it is done by adopting the methods provided under
the said Section."
In Malayalam Plantations Limited v. State of Kerala11, at page 121, it is observed by the Full
Bench of me Kerala High Court as follows:
"The duty of the Government to consider such representation before finally deciding
upon the question of fixing or revising the minimum wages appear to us to be the main contest of
the procedure requirement of Section 5 when resort is made to the procedure prescribed under
Section 5(1) (b).
Of course there is a further requirement that the advisory board should be consulted. Such
consultation must necessarily on the proposals and, therefore, cannot be at a stage prior to
publication of the proposals.
There is no reason to assume either on the language of the Section or on its scheme that the
consultation with the advisory board must be prior to the receipt of the representations."
In Aspinwal and Co. Ltd. V, State of Karnataka 12, it is observed by the Karnataka High Court as
follows (at pages 28 to 30):
"In my opinion, what should be the procedure for consultation, must necessarily depend
upon the object and the language of the statute requiring consultation. Section 5(2) provides that
the Government before revising the wages, after its proposal to revise the wages is published as
required under Clause (b) of Section 5(1), should consider all the representations received
before the prescribed date. The proviso to Sec. 5(2) imposes another condition before revising
the wages, namely, consultation with the board. Therefore, if the State Government forwards its
proposal to revise the wages and the representations received within the time specified, to the
board and seek its advice in that behalf and considers the representations and the advice
11 (1976-I-LLJ-114)
12 1986 (69) FJR 15

tendered, it would satisfy the requirements of Section 5(2), proviso. The Government if it so
desires might also express its views on the representations received and send them along with the
proposals published to the board and seek its advice and take a decision in the light of the advice
tendered. Both these procedures, in my opinion, constitute valid consultation..... This is the
content of natural justice incorporated in the statute itself."
In H.B. Verma v. Union of India13, it is observed by the Delhi High Court as follows: p. 43
"As seen above, a detailed procedure had been prescribed for revising the minimum
wages.... The minutes reproduced above do not show as to how the advisory board considered
various objections of the petitioners...We feel, perhaps the advisory board was under too much
pressure both on account of various Supreme Court orders and the award of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal and was rather overwhelmed on that account. Whatever may be,
the advisory board had to perform its statutory functions in a manner which would appear to be
fair, reasonable and just. The impugned notification issued on the basis of any such
recommendation or opinion of the advisory board cannot, therefore, stand."
Counsel would like to further submit that the principle of zoning has not been followed in
revising the wages of the beedy workers.
In support of the said contention, learned counsel cited the ruling of the Supreme Court in
Chandra Bhavan Boarding and Lodging v. State of Mysore 14, at page 411, wherein the
Supreme Court has observed as follows:
"The fixation of minimum wages depends on the prevailing economic conditions, the cost
of living in a place, the nature of work to be performed and the conditions in which the work is
performed."
13 (1993-I-LLJ-39)
14 (1970-II-LLJ-403)

He has also cited a ruling of a Division Bench of this Court in T.R. Sukumaran v. State of
Jharkhand15, wherein it is observed as follows:
"The cost of living in a particular area will certainly have a bearing on the minimum
wages to be fixed for the area. Cost of living is one thing, cost of living index is another. What is
relevant is the former and not the latter. The latter depends on the base year, which is not the
same in all the towns and the prices of certain selected goods in each town.... is likely to differ
from town to town. The concept of minimum wages is likely to undergo a change with the growth
of our economy and with the change in the standard of living. It is not a static concept... It is
likely to differ from place to place and from industry to industry. That is clear from the
provisions of the Act itself and is inherent in the very concept."
Counsel contention is that if the principle of zoning is applied different minimum wages have to
be fixed for the beedy workers in different parts of the State of Jharkhand and criterion taken by
the first respondent, viz., the settlement arrived at between the representatives of the beedy
workers and the employers of the beedy workers union is not the proper method. It is there that
the factories of the writ petitioners are mainly located in one district and the settlement relating
to the other districts will have no bearing on the same.
Hence, it is humbly submitted that the act of raising the rate of minimum wages is arbritrary.
15 (supra)

PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, this Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that
1. The Writ Petition is Maintainable.

2. The act of revision is arbitrary
And pass any other order in favour of the Petitioner that it may deem fit in the light of
equity, justice and good conscience.
All of which is respectfully submitted.

On behalf of the Petitioner
Place: Ranchi
Date: 19th May, 2017.


LABOUR LAW II MEMORIAL Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LABOUR LAW II MEMORIAL Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

K.K. Industries vs.

Government of Jharkhand & Another

Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, 1950

Government of Jharkhand & Another ............................................(Respondent)

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE JHARKHAND HIGH COURT AT RANCHI

-: MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:-

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

Memorial on Behalf of PetitionerPage 1

1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...3-5.

1. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kailash Chand Mahajan............................1992 Lab IC 1371

2. A. Janardhana v. Union of India..(1983-II-LLJ-175) (SC)

3. Bijay Cotton Mills Limited v. State of Ajmer..(1955-I-LLJ- 129)

Memorial on Behalf of PetitionerPage 2

4. Ramakrishna Ramnath v. State of Maharashtra..(1963-II-LLJ- 548)

5. Bijay Cotton Mills Limited v. State of Ajmer .....(1955-I-LLJ- 129)

6. Ramakrishna Ramnath v. State of Maharashtra......................................(1963-II-LLJ- 548)

7. Bijoy Krishna Paul v. State of Assam and Nagaland............................... (1970-I-LLJ-584)

8. V.K. Samajam v. State of Kerala.............................................................(1971-II-LLJ-252)

9. Malayalam Plantations Limited v. State of Kerala ...(1976-I-LLJ-114)

12. Chandra Bhavan Boarding and Lodging v. State of Mysore...................(1970-II-LLJ-403)

13. T.R. Sukumaran v. State of Jharkhand......................................................AIR 1964 SC 719

STATUTES & GUIDELINES

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. AIR - All India Reporter

Memorial on Behalf of PetitionerPage 4

10. Vol. - Volume

11. SC - Supreme Court

12. SCC - Supreme Court Case

13. Honble - Honourable

14. Sec. - Section

15. Co. - Company

16. Pvt. - Private

17. LLJ - Labour Law Journal

18. Lab IC - Labour Law Journal

Memorial on Behalf of PetitionerPage 5

Memorial on Behalf of PetitionerPage 6

K.K. Industry is a beedy supplier since 1991.

after consultation with the Advisory Board on January 2006.

Memorial on Behalf of PetitionerPage 7

I. WHETHER THE WRIT-PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE COURT OR

II. WHETHER THE ACT OF REVISION IN THE MINIMUM WAGES WAS

I. WHETHER THE WRIT-PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE COURT OR

Memorial on Behalf of PetitionerPage 8

Therefore, the writ petition is maintainable in the Court.

III. WHETHER THE ACT OF REVISION IN THE MINIMUM WAGES WAS

I. WHETHER THE WRIT-PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE COURT OR

2 1992 Lab IC 1371

Memorial on Behalf of PetitionerPage 9

3 1992 Lab IC 1371

Memorial on Behalf of PetitionerPage 10

II. WHETHER THE ACT OF REVISION IN THE MINIMUM WAGES WAS

Memorial on Behalf of PetitionerPage 11

the appropriate Government shall consult the Advisory Board also.

Memorial on Behalf of PetitionerPage 12

Memorial on Behalf of PetitionerPage 13

12 1986 (69) FJR 15

Memorial on Behalf of PetitionerPage 14

Memorial on Behalf of PetitionerPage 15

Memorial on Behalf of PetitionerPage 16

1. The Writ Petition is Maintainable.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Memorial on Behalf of PetitionerPage 17

Memorial on Behalf of PetitionerPage 18