REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.18368  OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.16602/2017)

Kerala Private Hospital  Association           ...Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Kerala & Ors.        …Respondent(s)

WITH

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.15791/2017

N. Abdul Rasheed & Anr.    ...Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Kerala & Anr.        …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.  

IN S.L.P.(c) No.16602 of 2017

1) I.A. seeking impleadment as party respondent

is allowed.

1

2) Leave granted.

3) This appeal is filed against the final judgment

and  order  dated  16.02.2017  passed  by  the  High

Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No.311

of  2017  whereby  the  High  Court  dismissed  the

appeal  filed by respondent  Nos.2,  3 and 4 herein

and  upheld  the  order  of  the  Single  Judge  dated

01.02.2017 in W.P. (C) No.1054 of 2017 wherein the

challenge made to the constitution of the Committee

set  up  by  the  State  of  Kerala  (respondent  No.1)

under Section 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948

(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for revision of

minimum wages payable to the employees working

in the private hospitals and other allied institutions

was repelled by the Single Judge.  

4) We  herein  set  out  the  facts,  in  brief,  to

appreciate the issue involved in these appeals.

5) In order to revise the minimum wages for the

employees  working  in  the  Private  Hospitals,

2

Dispensaries, Pharmacies, Scanning Centers, X-ray

Units and other allied institutions, the Government

of  Kerala-Labour  &  Skills  (E)  Department  issued

G.O. (Rt)  No.1334/2016/Labour dated 28.10.2016

accorded sanction for constitution of a Committee

called  “Private  Hospital  Industrial  Relation

Committee” under Section 5 read with Section 9 of

the Act.

6) The  Committee  was  to  function  under  the

Chairmanship of Labour Commissioner and it, inter

alia, consisted  of  Employers’  Representatives  and

Employees’ representatives as its Members in equal

numbers amongst others.   So far as the Employers’

representatives  are  concerned  with  which  we  are

concerned herein, the State nominated 13 persons

representing Private Medical Hospitals Associations,

Medical colleges, and private hospitals of the State.

These  persons  are:   (1)  Dr.  P.K.  M.  Rasheed,

President,  Kerala  Private  Hospital  Association,

3

Medical Care Hospital, Kodungalloor-680666 (2) Fr.

Tijo  Joy  Mullakkara,  Assistant  Director,  Jubilee

Mission Hospital, Thrissur-680005, (3) Fr. Thomas

Vaikkath  Parambil,  Director,  Lisie  Hospital,

Ernakulam-682018,  (4)  Sri  Manoj  V.C.,  Head HR,

Aster  DM  Health  Care,  South  Chittoor  P.O.

Cheranelloor,  Kochi-27,  (5)  Chairman,  Pariyaram

Medical  College,  Kannur,  (6)  Sri  Fazal  Gafoor,

President,  Muslim Education Society,  Bank Road,

Calicut,  (7)  Sri  Don  S.R.,  General  Manager  (HR),

Kims  Hospital,  PB  No.1,  Anayara  P.O.

Thiruvananthapuram-695  029,  (8)  Sri  Antony

Jacob. M, General Manager (HR), Kosmo Politan Pvt.

Hospital,  Murinjapalam  Pattom  P.O.,

Thiruvananthapuram, (9) Sri K.P. Mathew, Personal

Manager,  Medical  Trust  Hospital,  Pallimukku,

Ernakulam South, (10) Sri Saji  Mathew, Assistant

General  Manager,  Baby  Memorial  Hospital,

Calicut-673004, (11) Dr. A.M. Anvar, Vice-President,

4

Ayurveda  College  Management  Association,

Pooyappallil, Ambedkar Road, Edappally North P.O.

Kochi-24,  (12)  Sri  O.P.  Paul,  Manager(HR),  Elite

Mission Hospital, Koorkkanchery, Thrissur-680018

and (13) Sri Saidu Muhammad V.M., Administrator,

Moulana Hospital, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram.  

7) As  far  as  the  Employees’  representatives  are

concerned,  the  State  nominated  13  persons

representing  various  Trade  Unions,  Medical

Colleges, and Private Hospitals.  These persons are:

(1) Sri A. Madhavan, (CITU), Arunima, Devan Road,

Kanhangad,  Kasaragod,  (2)  Sri  K.P.  Sahadevan,

A.K.G.  Nagar,  Housing  Colony,  House  No.10,

Kakkad, Kannur-2, (3)  Smt.  Bhageerathi  K.(CITU),

Pranavam,  Moonnamkandathil,  East  Devagiri,

Medical  College  PO,  Kozhikode-673  008,  (4)  Smt.

Geetha Viswambharan, (CITU),  Pulincherry House,

Gramala,  Mulankunnathukavu  P.O.,  Trichur-680

581,  (5)  Sri  Velayudhan.  K.  (CITU),  Chinchu,

5

14/518 A, Chakkerikkaduparambu, Arakkinar P.O.

Kozhikode-673 028, (6) Sri Saju Thomas, (INTUC),

Kandathara,  Perumbadanna,  North  Paravur  P.O.,

Ernakulam,  (7)  Sri  Vadakkevila  Sasi,  (INTUC),

Kailas,  Vadakkevila  P.O.,  Kollam-691010,  (8)  Sri

A.N.  Rajan,  (AITUC),  Ambattumyalil,  Kolazhi  P.O.

Thrussur,  (9)  Sri  Jacob  Umma,  (HMS),  Nadayil

Veettil,  Chettikulangara PO, Mavelikkara-690 106,

(10)  Sri  T.K.  Sulfi,  (UTUC),  Pandala  Veedu,

Jonakappuram,  Kollam-691006,  (11)  Sri  P.A.

Shahul Hameed, (STU), Ponoth House, Near North

Juma Masjid, Vadanappally P.O.,Thrussur-690 614,

(12)  Sri  Jasmine  Shah.  M.(UNA),  Manthadathil,

Vettam P.O., Tirur, Malappuram-676 102 and (13)

Sri Libin Thomas (INA), Kunnathettu House, Arabi

P.O. Kannur.

8) The Committee was to take evidence and then

to  submit  the  proposal  to  enable  the  State

Government to issue notification under the Act.

6

9) Respondent Nos.2 to 4, who are running their

private hospitals in the State of Kerala, questioned

the  constitution  of  the  Committee  by  filing  writ

petition  in  the  High  Court  of  Kerala.   The

constitution  of  the  Committee  was  challenged

essentially on the ground that it did not satisfy the

requirements/norms prescribed in Section 9 of the

Act  inasmuch  as  it  did  not  give  proper

representation  so  far  as  the  Employers’

representatives  are  concerned.   According  to  the

writ  petitioners(respondent  Nos.2  to  4),  the

nomination  of  the  persons  whose  names  were

appearing at serial Nos.4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 was

not proper and it was against the spirit of Section 9

of the Act.  

10) It was the case of the writ petitioners that the

persons,  who are nominated in the Committee as

employers’  representatives  are  actually  employees

working  in  their  respective  Employers’

7

Organizations(Hospitals/ Medical colleges etc.) and,

therefore,  according  to  the  writ  petitioners  such

persons  would  not  be  the  proper  persons  to  be

nominated in the Committee.  In other words, the

contention was that only employers/owners of the

Hospitals/Organizations  could  be  nominated  as

Members to represent the interest of employers in

the Committee but not their employees working in

their Hospitals/Organizations.  

11) The  State  contested  the  writ  petition  and

defended  the  constitution  of  the  Committee.

According  to  the  State,  the  constitution  of  the

Committee  was  made  in  accordance  with  the

requirement of Section 9 of the Act and, therefore,

no flaw could be found in its constitution on any

ground much less on the ground raised by the writ

petitioners.   

12) The Single  Judge dismissed the  writ  petition

and upheld the constitution of Committee.  The writ

8

petitioners  (respondent  Nos.2-4)  filed  intra  court

appeal before the Division Bench against the order

of  Single  Judge.   By  impugned  judgment,  the

Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  dismissed  the

appeal and affirmed the order of the Single Judge.

13) The appellant herein is the Association of the

employers/owners  of  the  Hospitals  and  Medical

Organizations.  The appellant was neither a party to

the original writ petition nor the intra court appeal

in the High Court.  The appellant, however, sought

permission from this Court to file  special  leave to

appeal to challenge the impugned judgment on the

ground  that  they  have  an  interest  in  the  subject

matter of the Lis arising in the case and since their

interest  is  adversely  affected  due  to  improper

constitution of the Committee though upheld by the

High  Court,  they  have  felt  aggrieved  of  the

impugned  judgment  and,  therefore,  they  may  be

allowed  to  file  SLP  to  question  the  legality  and

9

correctness  of  the  impugned  judgment.

Accordingly,  this  Court  granted permission to  the

appellant as prayed.  This is how, the appellant has

filed this appeal by way of special leave against the

impugned judgment before this Court.  

14) Heard  Mr.  Huzefa  Ahmadi,  learned  senior

counsel for the appellant and Mr. C.K. Sasi, learned

counsel for the respondents.

15) Mr.  Huzefa  Ahamdi,  learned  senior  counsel

while  assailing the  legality  and correctness of  the

impugned  judgment  reiterated  the  same

submissions that were urged before the High Court

in  the  writ  petition  and  writ  appeal  by  the  writ

petitioners/appellants(respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein)

as noted above.

16) In  substance,  his  submission  was  that  the

constitution  of  the  Committee  made  by  the  State

vide order dated 28.10.2016 cannot be said to be in

conformity with the requirement of Section 9 of the

10

Act inasmuch as there was no proper representation

given  to  the  employers  engaged  in  the  medical

activities.

17) Learned counsel pointed out that the persons,

who  are  nominated  to  represent  each  employer

(Hospitals/Medical  Organizations),  whose  names

are at  S.Nos.4,7,8,9,10,12 and 13(Sri  Manoj  V.C.,

Head  HR,  Aster  DM Health  Care,  South  Chittoor

P.O. Cheranelloor, Kochi-27,  Sri Don S.R., General

Manager  (HR),  Kims  Hospital,  PB  No.1,  Anayara

P.O.  Thiruvananthapuram-695  029,  Sri  Antony

Jacob. M, General Manager (HR), Kosmo Politan Pvt.

Hospital,  Murinjapalam  Pattom  P.O.,

Thiruvananthapuram,  Sri  K.P.  Mathew,  Personal

Manager,  Medical  Trust  Hospital,  Pallimukku,

Ernakulam  South,  Sri  Saji  Mathew,  Assistant

General  Manager,  Baby  Memorial  Hospital,

Calicut-673004, Sri O.P. Paul, Manager (HR), Elite

Mission Hospital, Koorkkanchery, Thrissur-680018

11

and  Sri  Saidu  Muhammad  V.M.,  Administrator,

Moulana  Hospital,  Perinthalmanna,  Malappuram)

are the employees working in the Hospitals/Nursing

Homes etc..  

18) According  to  learned  counsel,  the  proper

person,  who  should  have  been  nominated  to

represent  the  employers’  interest,  was  the

“employer” himself of the Hospital/Organization but

not their employees working under them.  

19) Learned  counsel  submitted  that  if  the

employee is nominated to represent the interest of

his  employer  then  such  nominee(employee)  would

be  more  interested in  his(employee)  own financial

interest while making recommendation for revision

of minimum wages rather than to take care of his

master's (employer’s) interest in recommending the

wages.  But if the employer is nominated personally

in the Committee, he would be in a better position

to  safeguard  his  interest.  Such  nominations,

12

according to learned counsel, would be regarded as

having  been  made  in  keeping  the  real  object  of

Section 9 of the Act in mind.  

20) In  reply,  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent

(State) supported the impugned judgment including

the constitution of the Committee made by the State

and contended that it is in accordance with Section

9 of the Act and hence the submissions urged by

learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  are  totally

misconceived and deserve rejection.  

21) Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

find no merit in the appeal.

22) Section 9 of the Act, which is relevant for this

case, reads as under:  

“9.  Composition of Committees  ,    etc  . - Each of the committees, sub-committees and the Advisory Board shall consist of persons to be nominated by the appropriate Government representing employers and employees in the scheduled employments,  who shall  be equal in  number,  and  independent  persons  not exceeding  one-third  of  its  total  number  of members;  one  of  such independent  persons

13

shall  be  appointed  the  Chairman  by  the appropriate Government.”

23) Section  9  deals  with  constitution  of  various

Committees  for  due  performance  of  several  acts

specified  under  the  Act.   An  appropriate

Government  is  empowered  to  constitute  a

Committee whose composition consists of members

by  nomination  to  represent  the  employers’  and

employees’  interest  in  equal  numbers.  The

independent persons are also the members of  the

Committee  whose  number  should  not  exceed  one

third  of  its  total  number  of  the  members.   The

Chairman of the Board by the Central Government

is empowered to appoint one independent person.

24) The  Minimum  Wages  (Central)  Rules,  1950

(hereinafter  referred to  as  “the  Rules”)  prescribes,

inter  alia, a  term of  office  of  the  members  of  the

Committee  and  the  Advisory  Committee(Rule  3),

Nomination  of  substitute-members  (Rule  4A),

eligibility for re-nomination of the members of the

14

Committee,  Advisory  Committee  and  the  Board

(Rule 7), resignation of the Chairman and members

of  the  Committee/Board  and  filling  of  the  casual

vacancies  (Rule  8)  and  disqualification  (Rule  10).

The  Rules  nowhere  provide  as  to  who  should  be

nominated  as  representative  of  employer  in  the

Committee.   

25) Now coming to the facts of the case on hand,

there lies a fallacy in the submissions urged by the

learned counsel for the appellant.

26) A person, who is nominated to represent the

interest of his employer, in our considered opinion,

need not necessarily be the employer himself.  If on

the  other  hand,  his  employee  is  nominated  to

represent his employer’s interest, such nomination

is in accordance with the requirement of Section 9

of the Act.  It is for the reason that such nominee

once  nominated  would  defend  his  employer's

interest and not individual interest as an employee

15

in  the Committee.   In other  words,  a nominee  in

such a case does not participate in his individual

capacity  as  an  employee  in  the  Committee  but

participates as a representative of his employer.  

27) A representation,  by way of  nomination,  is  a

well accepted phenomenon.  A fortiori, an employee

while  in  the  employment  of  his  employer,  when

nominated as his employer’s  representative  in the

Committee then such employee, who is well-versed

with  the  working  of  his  organization  and  the

subject,  is  regarded  as  a  competent

person(nominee)  to  represent  the  interest  of  his

master(employer).   No fault  can thus be found in

such  nomination  when  made  by  the  State  while

constituting the Committee.  It is more so when we

find  that  the  employer  did  not  object  to  such

nomination made by the State of their employee in

the Committee.   

28) We consider it apposite to refer here a three-

16

Judge Bench decision of this Court in  Ministry of

Labour  &  Rehabilitation  &  Anr. vs.  Tiffin’s

Barytes  Asbestos  &  Paints  Ltd.  and  Anr., AIR

1985  SC  1391  wherein  the  challenge  laid  to

constitution  of  Committee  and  the  resultant

notification  issued  under  Section  5(1)  read  with

Section 9 of the Act fixing minimum wages for the

workers  working  in  Manganese,  Gypsum,  Barytes

and Bauxite Mines was repelled by upholding the

constitution of the Committee and the notification

with following pertinent  observation.   The learned

Judge, Chinnappa Reddy, J.  succinctly observed as

under:  

“3………………………..We  are  afraid  that  the approach  of  the  High  Court  was  entirely wrong.   For  the  purpose  of  appointing  the committee  to represent  the employers  in  a scheduled employment, it was not necessary that the person appointed should be engaged for profit in the particular employment.  It is enough if a nexus exists between the persons so appointed to represent the employers in the particular employment and the particular employment concerned.  For example it may be absurd to appoint persons engaged in the newspaper  industry  to  a  committee  to represent  employers  concerned  in  the

17

employment  of  Barytes  mines  or  Bauxite mines…………………………………………………… ….We  also  wish  to  emphasise  that notifications fixing minimum wages are not to be lightly interfered with under Art.226 of the  Constitution  on  the  ground  of  some irregularities  in  the  constitution  of  the committee  or  in  the  procedure  adopted  by the committee.  It must be remembered that the  committee  acts  only  as  a recommendatory  body  and  the  final notification fixing minimum wages has to be made  by  the  Government.   A  notification fixing  minimum wages,  in  a  country  where wages  are  already  minimal  should  not  be interfered  with  under  Art.226  of  the Constitution except on the most substantial of grounds.  The legislation is a social welfare legislation  undertaken  to  further  the Directive  Principles  of  State  Policy  and action taken pursuant to it cannot be struck down on mere technicalities.”

29) In  the  case  at  hand,  we  find  that  equal

representation  is  given  to  both  -  employer  and

employee (13 persons each) in the Committee.  

30) So  far  as  the  employers’  representation  is

concerned,  we  find  that  there  exists  a  nexus

between  the  persons  who  are  nominated  and  for

whom they are nominated.  We also find that the

employees who are nominated, are working as Head

of Human Resources Department in their respective

18

organizations (see at serial Nos. 4, 7, 8 and 9), they

are thus well-versed in the subject in question by

virtue of the posts held by them in their respective

employment.  

31) In our opinion, we have not been able to notice

any  flaw  or  illegality  in  the  constitution  of  the

Committee or/and in nominating the members by

the State. It is in accordance with the requirement

of Section 9 of the Act and hence does not call for

any interference.  It was, therefore, rightly repelled

by the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High

Court.  

32) There  is  no  challenge  to  the  constitution  of

Committee  on  any  other  ground  except  the  one

which we have dealt with supra.  In this view of the

matter,  the  impugned  judgment  deserves  to  be

upheld.  It is accordingly upheld.

32) In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no

merit in the appeal, which fails and is accordingly

19

dismissed.  

In SLP (C) No.15791 of 2017

In  view  of  the  judgment  rendered  above  in

appeal  arising  out  of  S.L.P.(C)  No.16602 of  2017,

the special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

                     ………...................................J. [R.K. AGRAWAL]

                             …...……..................................J.   [ABHAY  MANOHAR  SAPRE]

New Delhi;        November 09, 2017  

20

ITEM NO.1502              COURT NO.8        SECTION XI -A (For judgment)                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS C.A. No.18368 of 2017 @ SLP(C) No(s).  16602/2017 KERALA PRIVATE HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION        Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.                 Respondent(s) (With application for impleadment) WITH SLP(C) No. 15791/2017 (XI -A) Date  :  09-11-2017  These  matters  were  called  on  for pronouncement of judgment today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Zulfiker Ali P. S, AOR Mr. M.B. George, Adv.  

                   For Respondent(s) Mr. P.V. Surendranath, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Subhash Chandran K.R., Adv. Ms. Resmitha R. Chandran, Adv. Ms. Yogamaya M.G,, Adv.

                   Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR                             

Application for impleadment as party respondent is allowed.  

Leave granted in SLP(C) No.16602/2017.  Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Abhay  Manohar  Sapre

pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal and His Lordship.     

The  appeal  and  special  leave  petition   are dismissed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

(SWETA DHYANI)                            (SUMAN JAIN) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT                 BRANCH OFFICER

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)  

21