Natural Justice Principles Have Brooding Omnipresence & May Not Be Always Alien: Karnataka High Court
Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice K.V. Aravind, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court remarked that the natural justice and principles conceptualizing natural justice have brooding omnipresence and the same may not be always alien.
The Court remarked thus in 52 Appeals preferred by the Employers’ Association against the Judgment of the Single Judge passed in a Writ Petition.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice K.V. Aravind observed, “… natural justice and principles conceptualizing natural justice have brooding omnipresence. Non-compliance of this facet of obligation of law would render the exercise, the process and the resultant decision to be unreasonable and arbitrary in that sense. A proposition may not be incorrect if it is observed that even in respect of statutory exercise leading to legislative piece or product, the right to hearing to the interested or affected person or party should be availed, and for that matter observance the principles of natural justice may not be always alien, in the statutory exercise while preceded.”
The Bench said that, while applying any law or in operation of law or statutory provision, when civil consequences entail on a party or the final decision that comes out to operate adverse or it concerns a stakeholder or where stakeholding party has interest in it, right to be heard becomes implicit to lend the process and the decision a reasonability and legal legitimacy.
Senior Advocates S.S. Naganand, K. Kasturi, Advocates B.C. Prabhakar, Subha Ananthi K., G.S. Subba Rao, and Hiremath Praveen Kumar Appayya appeared on behalf of the Appellants while Senior Advocate V. Prakash, Additional Government Advocate (AGA) Niloufer Akbar, Advocates K.B. Narayanaswamy, and V.R. Datar appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
In the lead case, the Appellant was an Association of Employers registered as Trade Union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, (TUA) and in other Appeals, the Appellants were either employers or their association. All these Appellants were not party to the main proceedings of Writ Petition decided by the Single Judge. The respective Applications filed by them for leave to appeal were granted by the Court and they were permitted to prosecute their Appeals. As per the Judgment which was under a common challenge, the Single Judge set aside the notification issued by the Government under Section 3(1)(b) read with Section 5(1)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (MWA).
Via the aforesaid Judgment, the minimum rates of wages for the employments in the Foundry-with or without machine shop, were revised. The Government was directed to complete the entire process within an outer limit of two months. The prayer was advanced by the employees Unions to set aside the Notification fixing the rates of minimum wages for the workers in accordance with guidelines prescribed by the Supreme Court in the case of Workmen v. Reptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. [(1992) 1 SCC 290].
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “… even as the Notification under Section 5(1)(b) could be viewed as a piece of subordinate legislation as an ultimate product, the process leading to issuance thereof is a blend of statutory exercise leading to the Notification. The exercise of statutory powers is under Section 5(1)(b) and that has to be in reasonable manner.”
The Court said that, when the exercise is under Section 5 of the Act which deals with the procedure for fixing and revising the minimum wages, the said provision may be looked at closely.
“When it is a question of revising the minimum wages, variety of factors would govern the ultimate act of issuance of Notification and incorporating the conditions and stipulations therein, in which, it is legitimate to conclude, that the employers should have their say and the stand”, it emphasised.
The Court further observed that the Notification in question precedes a statutory process in terms of Section 5(1)(b) of the Act and the principles of natural justice cannot be viewed to be foreign to such statutory exercise.
“Not giving hearing to the appellants who are the employers and the stakeholders who would suffer the impact of the Notification, will render the exercise and the ultimate result to be unjust and in that sense arbitrary. … The unreasonableness may unfold itself in more than one ways including on account of non observance of principles of natural justice when party affected is sidelined in the process”, it remarked.
The Court added that the Notification under Section 5 of the Act takes its shape only after a statutory exercise in terms of Section 5(1)(b) is undergone.
“… the class of the employers could not be excluded from the zone, by any stretch of logic to treat them outsiders. The employers have definite interest in the exercise and giving hearing to them would not only be just and proper, but would also make the statutory exercise just, fair and reasonable. In this view, it has to be observed that the appellants were the necessary parties in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge”, it also noted.
Moreover, the Court elucidated that all statutory exercises have to be reasonable leading to outcome fair and objective in law and this may be possible only if it has an intake of natural justice.
“… the rule of fair play must not be jettisoned except in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands. The court must make every effort to salvage this cardinal rule to the maximum extent possible, with situational modifications. But, the core of it must, however, remain, namely, that the person affected must have reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relation exercise”, it observed.
The Court said that, even if the Notification under Section 5(1) is perceived to be a subordinate legislative piece, it preceded the statutory process and a flaw in the nature of unreasonableness on any count, in such process, has to be remedied. It added that the statutory exercise has to be informed by tenets of fairness, reasonableness and for that purpose compliance of principles of natural justice by giving the party interested a hearing.
“In the facts and circumstances of the case and perceiving the controversy and issues involved, it has to be held that the appellant-employers are required to be treated at least proper parties and that they ought to have been heard”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Appeals and remitted back the proceedings of Writ Petition to Single Judge for his decision afresh.
Cause Title- Karnataka Employers’ Association & Ors. v. All India Trade Union Congress (R) & Ors.
