Disposed¶6

Mr. Dashrath Yashwant Jadhav and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through Dept. of Labour and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jul 2025PIL/36/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL 36/2019 Bombay High Court; powerloom workers Kolhapur; Minimum Wages Act 1948; Section 20 claims adjudication; Section 3(1)(b) minimum wage revision; mandamus under Article 226; Maharashtra State Minimum Wages Advisory Committee reconstitution; directions to State Government; disposed 8 July 2025; Aradhe CJ & Marne J.

What did the court decide?

PIL disposed of with directions: (a) State Government to appoint authorities under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 within four weeks; (b) constitution of the Maharashtra State Minimum Wages Advisory Committee to be completed within eight weeks; (c) notification under Section 3(1)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 to be issued within an outer limit of four months. ¶6

Mr. Dashrath Yashwant Jadhav and Ors. Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the State Government failed to appoint adequate Authorities and provide infrastructure for expeditious disposal of workers' claims under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, warranting a writ of mandamus under Article 226. +1 more

¶2(a)

Court's answer

The State Government shall take action to appoint the authorities to adjudicate the claims of the workers under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 within a period of four weeks.

¶5(a)

Ratio / Principle

The process of constituting the Maharashtra State Minimum Wages Advisory Committee shall be completed within a period of eight weeks.

¶5(b)

Key takeaways

Notification under Section 3(1)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 shall be issued within an outer limit of four months.ratio¶5(c)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public Interest Litigation filed by workers employed in powerloom and allied industries in Kolhapur district alleging that the State Government failed to expeditiously decide claims under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for want of appointed Authorities, and failed to revise minimum wages under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act of 1948 despite this Court's direction dated 2nd February, 2015. The State pointed out that a draft notification for fixation of minimum wages for powerloom workers was prepared on 19th March, 2024 and published on 10th June, 2024, but its finalisation required approval of the Maharashtra State Minimum Wages Advisory Committee, whose tenure had expired on 14th November, 2021. HELD: The Court issued directions that (a) the State Government appoint the authorities to adjudicate claims under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 within four weeks; (b) the process of constituting the Maharashtra State Minimum Wages Advisory Committee be completed within eight weeks; and (c) notification under Section 3(1)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 be issued within an outer limit of four months. With these directions, the PIL was disposed of.

¶1

2-PIL-36-2019.doc

¶2

Pdp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 36 OF 2019

¶5

Mr. Dashrath Yashwant Jadhav & Ors. .. Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Akshay Patil a/w Ms. Devika Madekar i/by Mr. Mayur Thorat for petitioners.

¶9

Mrs. Neha S. Bide, Government Pleader with Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. Govt. Pleader and Mrs. N. M. Mehra, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶10

Mr. Kiran Bapat, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Suhas Inamdar for respondent nos.5 to 7.

¶11

CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶12

Digitally signed by PRAVIN PRAVINDASHARATHPANDIT DASHARATHPANDITDate:2025.07.08 17:41:49 +0530

¶13

DATE: 8^th JULY, 2025

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1. The petitioners are workers employed in powerloom and allied industries in Kolhapur district. According to the petitioners the State Government had failed to expeditiously decide the claims filed by the workers under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1948”) and had failed to review the minimum wages payable to the workers as required under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act of 1948.

¶16

2. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶17

¶18

2-PIL-36-2019.doc

¶19

“(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate order, directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing Respondent No.1 to formulate guidelines and to provide necessary infrastructure, facilities and also appointment of adequate Authorities for expeditious disposal of the claims filed under section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

¶20

(b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing Respondent No.2 and 3 to adjudicate and dispose off the cases filed for recovery of minimum wages pursuant to the notification dated 29^th January, 2015 within a period of three months or any other period which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.”

¶21

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that since the State Government has failed to appoint the authority, therefore, the claims filed by the workers under Section 20 of the Act of 1948 are not being adjudicated. It is further submitted that the State Government is under an obligation to revise the minimum wages as mandated under Section 3(1) (b) of the Act of 1948. However, the aforesaid decision to revise the minimum wages was also not taken despite the direction issued by this Court on 2^nd February, 2015.

¶22

4. Learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that draft notification for revision of the minimum wages is under consideration and the suitable action shall be taken to appoint the authorities for expeditious disposal of the claims under Section 20 of the Act of 1948 within such time as this Court deem fit. It is pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader that for fixation of the minimum wages for workers engaged in powerloom, the State

¶23

¶24

2-PIL-36-2019.doc

¶25

Government has prepared a draft notification on 19^th March, 2024 which came to be published on 10^th June, 2024. Upon publication of the draft notification, suggestions and objections have been received. However, for the purpose of finalization of the draft notification, the approval of Maharashtra State Minimum Wages Advisory Committee is needed. It is expressed that tenure of the current Advisory Committee has come to an end on 14^th November, 2021 and the process is underway for constitution of the new Advisory Committee.

¶26

5. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we issue the following directions:-

¶27

(a) The State Government shall take an action to appoint the authorities to adjudicate the claims of the workers under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 within a period of four weeks.

¶28

(b) The process of constituting the Maharashtra State Minimum Wages Advisory Committee shall be completed within a period of eight weeks.

¶29

(c) Notification under Section 3(1)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 shall also be issued within an outer limit of four months from today.

¶30

6. With the aforesaid directions, the PIL is disposed of.

¶31

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶32

Mr. Dashrath Yashwant Jadhav and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through Dept. of Labour and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Dashrath Yashwant Jadhav and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through Dept. of Labour and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheth Motishaw Lalbaug Jain Charities vs the State of Maharashtra through Office Government Pleader

Sheth Bherulalji Kanaiyalalji Kothari Religious Trust vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development

Faiyyaz Mullaji vs the Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika

Balya Mam Alias Suresh Gopinath Mhatre vs National Highway Authority of India and Ors.

Dinesh S/O. Sheshrao Thakre and Another vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi and Ors.

Sanjay Dinanath Tiwari vs the State of Maharshtra through Government Pleader

Ajit Shantaram Mahadik vs Commander Works Engineers Army

Sagar Devre Son of Kantilal Devre vs the Union of India through the Secretary and 3 Ors.

Vijay Dattaram Zore vs Hindustan Hosiery Mills Bombay Cotton Mills Compound

Mohammed Israili vs Reliance Commercial Finance Limited

Sanjeev Malhotra vs SBI Global Factors Ltd.

Pradip Bastimal Chopra vs I. N. Halkara H.U.F. through Its Karta Indarmal N. Halkara

Monarch Surveyours and Engineering Consultants Limited vs Union of India through the General Manager

Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs Ajay Khatana