1990 (8) TMI 400 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Minimum Wages Act to the Company.
2. Classification of the Company as an oil mill.
3. Compliance with sections 5 and 9 of the Minimum Wages Act.
4. Nature of the employees' categories under the Minimum Wages Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Minimum Wages Act to the Company:
The judgment addresses whether the Minimum Wages Act applies to the Company. The Company argued that it does not run an industry covered by the Act, contending that it manufactures vanaspati, not oil. However, the prosecution maintained that the factory is an oil mill, which is covered by the Act. The Court concluded that the Company is indeed covered by the Act, as it sells oil and refined oil in addition to vanaspati, making it an oil mill within the meaning of item 5 of Part I of the Schedule to the Act.

2. Classification of the Company as an Oil Mill:
The primary issue was whether the Company, which manufactures vanaspati, falls under the classification of an oil mill as per the Act. The Court found that vanaspati is essentially hydrogenated vegetable oil and retains the basic characteristics of oil despite undergoing various processes. Therefore, the Company, which sells oil and refined oil in addition to vanaspati, is classified as an oil mill. The Court emphasized that oil remains oil if it retains its essential properties, and the processes it undergoes do not convert it into a different substance.

3. Compliance with Sections 5 and 9 of the Minimum Wages Act:
The Company contended that it was not bound by the recommendations of the committees appointed under section 5 of the Act, as no representative of the vanaspati industry was included. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the Company was issued a questionnaire as an oil mill and had the opportunity to present its case. The Court noted that sections 5 and 9 were complied with, as the committees included representatives of oil mills, and the Company was invited to submit its views.

4. Nature of the Employees' Categories under the Minimum Wages Act:
The Company argued that it employs workers in connection with the hydrogenation process, who do not fall within the categories of skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled employees covered by the Act. The Court dismissed this contention, noting that the Company failed to identify any employees outside these categories. The Court concluded that the specified categories exhaust the types of workers employed in any undertaking, barring specialists and technical experts not covered by the Act.

Conclusion:
The Court upheld the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellants under section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act. The appeals were dismissed, affirming that the Company is classified as an oil mill and is subject to the provisions of the Act. The Court found no merit in the arguments regarding non-compliance with sections 5 and 9 or the classification of employees. The sentences awarded were deemed appropriate, and no arguments were made to suggest they were excessive.