161 of1958 and 109 of 1959
Petitions under article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights
Achhru Ram D B Prem and Ganpat Rai for the petitioners In Petn
No 161 of 58 and 16 17 35 58 69 102 1091959
DR Prem B Thiagarajan and T Satyanarayana for the petitioners In Petn
No 36 of 1959
C K Daphtary Solicitor General of India R Ganapathy Iyer R H Dhebar and T M Sen for the respondents in all the petitions
April 28
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH J
In the First Schedule to the Constitution as originally enacted under the heading  Part C States were set out the names of ten C States
The Parliament of India enacted The Government of Part C States Act 49 of 1951 providing for the constitution of Legislative Assemblies Councils of Ministers and Councils of Advisers for Part C States
Under section 4 of the Act the President was authorised to delimit by order the constituencies into which each Part C State was to be divided and the areas of the constituencies the number of seats allocated to each such constituency and the number of seats reserved for scheduled castes and tribes
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 of the Act the President made an order determining the constituencies into which the State of Himachal Pradesh was to be divided
In 1952 elections were held to the Himachal Pradesh Assembly and 36 members were elected in the different constituencies
In the Legislative Assembly of the State 757 Bill No 7 of 1953 was introduced by the Government for the abolition of certain intermediaries in respect of landed estates
Before that Bill was passed into an Act on May 8 1954 the Parliament of India enacted the Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur New State Act No 32 of 1954
This Act which constituted a new State by uniting the States of Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur received the assent of the President on May 28 1954 and was brought into force under a notifi cation dated July 1 1954
Under section 12 of Act 32 of 1954 a Legislative Assembly for the new State of Himachal Pradesh was to be constituted with 41 seats to be filled by direct elections
No fresh elections to the new State Assembly were held but on July 7 1954 a notification was issued by the Lieutenant Governor of the new Himachal Pradesh State purporting to exercise the powers conferred by section 9 of the  converting the second session of 1954 of the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly
Pursuant to this notification the Legislature assembled and Bill No 7 of 1953 which was introduced in the old Himachal C State Assembly was passed into an Act
This Act called the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act 1954 hereinafter called the Abolition Act received the assent of the President on Novem ber 23 1954 and was brought into force under a notification issued by the State Government on January 26 1955
This court in petitions under article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of the Abolition Act held that the said Act could not be recognised as a piece of legislation validly enacted
It was held that even though section 151 of the New State Act provided that each of the 36 sitting members representing a constituency of the old Legislative Assembly of Himachal Pradesh was to be deemed to have been elected by that constituency and by  the deeming provision  these members were placed in the same position in which they would have been placed had they gone through the entire process of election and been elected as no notification had been issued under section 74 of the Representation of the People  the 36 members of the old Himachal Pradesh Assembly could not constitute the Legislative Assembly
It was further held that by the notification issued by the Lieutenant Governor the second session of the old Legislative Assembly was summoned and not the new Legislative Assembly and in the session held pursuant to the command of the Lieutenant Governor Bill No 7 of 1953 pending before the Assembly of the old State which had lapsed when that Assembly was dissolved could not be enacted as an Act of the Legislative Assembly of the new State
After this decision was pronounced on October 10 1958 the President issued Ordinance No 7 of 1958 validating the constitution and proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the new State of Himachal Pradesh formed under Act 32 of 1954 and prohibiting the courts from questioning the validity of the proceedings of the new Legislative Assembly on the ground of defect in its constitution
This Ordinance was replaced by Act 56 of 1958
Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act provided as under Section 3  Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or in any judgment decree or order of any court athe body of persons summoned to meet from time to time as the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha during the period commencing on the 1st day of July 1954 and ending with the 31st day of October 1956 by the Lieutenant Governor of Himachal Pradesh in the exercise or purported exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 9 of the  shall be deemed for all purposes to have been the duly constituted Legislative Assembly of the new State of Himachal Pradesh formed under section 3 of the  bthe persons who sat or voted or otherwise took part in the proceedings of the new Legislative Assembly shall be deemed to have been entitled so to do as members cthe persons who functioned as the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the new Legislative Assembly 759 shall be deemed to have been duly chosen as the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker respectively and accordingly 1any Bill passed by the new Legislative Assembly whether the Bill was introduced in the new Legislative Assembly or was introduced in the Legislative Assembly of Himachal Pradesh functioning immediately before the 1st day of July 1954 and assented to by the President shall be deemed to have been validly enacted and to have the force of law 2 any grant made resolution passed or adopted proceeding taken or any other thing done by or before the new Legislative Assembly shall be deemed to have been made passed adopted taken or done in accordance with law
 Section 4 No court shall question any Act passed or any grant resolution proceeding or thing made passed adopted taken or done by or before the new Legislative Assembly merely on the ground that the new Legislative Assembly had not been duly constituted or on the ground that a person who was not entitled so to do presided over sat or voted or otherwise took part in the proceedings of the new Legislative Assembly
 By these nine petitions the constitutional validity of Ordinance No 7 of 1958 and Act No 56 of 1958 is challenged and the petitioners pray for writs of mandamus or other writs or directions restraining the Himachal Pradesh Administration and the Union of India from giving effect to Ordinance No 7 of 1958 and Act No 56 of 1958 and to the Abolition Act or acting in any manner under or on the basis of that Act 
Counsel for the petitioners contends 1 that the persons summoned by the Lieutenant Governor by his notification dated July 7 1954 could not constitute a Legislature of the new State as those persons were not elected or nominated in the manner prescribed by article 240 of the Constitution and the Parliament could Dot by law validate acts and proceedings of that body which had no authority to legislate 2 the Parliament in enacting the Validating 760 Act had no authority retrospectively to form a Legislative Assembly in violation of the terms of article 240 of the Constitution especially when the new State of Himachal Pradesh which was formed under Act 32 of 1954 had ceased to exist at the date when the Abolition Act was enacted and 3 even if the Validating Act is not open to challenge the Abolition Act contravened article 31 of the Constitution and is therefore void as infringing the fundamental rights of the petitioners under article 19 and article 31 of the Constitution
In our view there is no substance in any of the contentions raised
By article 2401 of the Constitution before it was amended by the Constitution Seventh Amendment Act 1956 it was provided  240
1 Parliament may by law create or continue for any State specified in Part C of the First Schedule and administered through a Chief Commissioner or Lieutenant Governor aa body whether nominated elected or partly nominated or elected to function as a Legislature for the State or ba Council of Advisers or Ministers or both with such constitution powers and functions in each case as may be specified in the law
 By the Article as it stood before its amendment the Parliament was competent by law to create or continue for any State specified in Part C of the First Schedule a body to function as a Legislature
Under that Article the Legislature was to consist of persons nominated or elected or partly elected and partly nominated and there is no dispute that the Legislature consisting of members validly elected from the various constituencies functioned for the old State of Himachal Pradesh
Those 36 members of the old Himachal Pradesh Assembly having been under Act 49 of 1951 duly elected to the Assembly of that State by virtue of section 151 of Act 32 of 1954 each member was to be deemed to have been duly elected by the corresponding constituency of the Legislature of the new State and the only reason why those members could not function as a Legislature of the new State was that the notification under section 74 of the Representation of 761 the People Act was not published
The legislative acts of that Assembly were undoubtedly unauthorised but it Was competent to the Parliament by legislation to remove the bar which arose because of the failure to issue the notification and to validate the acts done by the Legislature
Article 240 did not provide that the Legislative Assembly could not function unless the members thereof were expressly elected or were nominated to the Legislature of a Part C State
By article 248 the Parliament has the residuary power to make laws with respect to any matter not enumerated in the Concurrent List or the State List and legislation seeking to remove the disability of members of a Legislative Assembly of a Part C State arising because of the failure to issue a notification under section 74 of the Representation of the People Act is not covered by any item falling in the Concurrent List or in the State List
By item No 97 in List I to the Seventh Schedule the Union Parliament is competent to make any other law not enumerated in Lists II and III
The legislative competence of the Parliament to enact the Act is therefore not open to challenge
The legislative competence of the Legislative Assembly of the New Himachal State Assembly to enact the Abolition Act in 1954 cannot be and is not denied
There is no absolute bar against the authority of the Parliament to enact legislation which takes away vested rights provided the legislation falls within any of the legislative lists within the competence of the Parliament and it does not infringe any of the fundamental rights of the citizens
Again no constitutional provision is violated by the enactment of Act 56 of 1958
We are also unable to hold that the authority of Parliament to validate the acts and proceedings of the Assembly summoned by the Lieutenant Governor in 1954 was exhausted when article 240 as it originally stood was amended by the Constitution Seventh Amendment Act 1956 and Part C State of Himachal Pradesh ceased to exist
When the Validating Act was enacted the Himachal Pradesh Part C State had ceased to exist but on that account the authority of the Parliament to validate 762 the proceedings of the body of persons which purported to function as the Legislative Assembly under Act 32 of 1954 was not extinguished
Did the Abolition Act infringe the fundamental rights of the petitioners under article 19 or article 31 of the Constitution  By section 1 1 the tenants were invested with the right to acquire the interests of the landowners in the lands held by them
It was provided that notwithstanding any law custom or contract to the contrary any tenant other than a sub tenant shall on application made to the compensation officer at any time after the commencement of the Act be entitled to acquire on payment of compensation the right title and interest of the land owner in the land held by him subject to certain terms and conditions set out therein
Section 14 permitted acquisition by the tenants of the rights of the land owners in a portion of the lands of the tenancy in certain specified circumstances
Section 15 sanctioned the acquisition by the State Government of the rights of the land
owners by notification in the gazette declaring that as from such date and in respect of such area as may be specified in the notification the right title and interest of the land owner in the lands of any tenancy held under him by a tenant shall stand transferred to and vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances created in such lands by the land owner
By section 16 the method of computation of the compensation payable for acquisition of the right title and interest of the land owners under section 15 is prescribed
By section 27 it was provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of the foregoing sections of that chapter the land owner who held land the annual land revenue of which exceeded Rs 125 per year the right title and interest of such owner in such land shall be deemed to have been transferred and vested in the State Government free of all encumbrances
Sub section
3 of section 27 laid down that the land owner whose right was acquired under sub section 1 by the State Government shall be entitled to receive compensation to be determined by the compensation officer having regard to so
17 and 18 of the Act in accordance with the provisions of Schedule II but in 763 the case of such occupancy tenant who was liable to pay rent in terms of land revenue or the multiple of land revenue the compensation payable to his landowner shall be computed in accordance with Schedule 1
Provision was also made by the Act for State management of lands in certain eventualities
Article 31 of the Constitution as amended by the Constitution Fourth Amendment Act 1955 provides inter alia that a law for compulsory acquisition of property for public purposes shall not be called in question in any court on the ground that the compensation provided by that law is not adequate and by article 31 A which was substituted by the Constitution Fourth Amendment Act 1955 for the original Article with retrospective effect it is provided that notwithstanding anything contained in article 13 no law providing for a the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights shall be deemed to have become void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the fundamental rights con ferred by article 14 19 or 31 provided that where such law is made by the Legislature of a State the provisions of the Article shall not apply thereto unless the law having been reserved for the consideration of the President has received his assent
The Abolition Act passed by the State Assembly was reserved for consideration of the President and it received his assent
The impugned Act contains provisions transferring the interest of the land owners to the tenants in lands and for acquisition by the State of the property of the land owners on payment of compensation under the Schedule provided in that behalf
This court has held in Sri Ram Narain vs State of Bombay 1 that a statute the object of which is to bring about agrarian reform by transferring the interest of the land owners to tenants falls within the class of statutes contemplated by article 31 Aa and is protected from the attack that it violates the fundamental rights enshrined in articles 14 19 and 31 of the Constitution
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners conceded and in our judgment rightly that the principle of that case governed this 1 1959 Sapp 1 SCR 489 764 case and the validity of section 11 could not in view of article 31 A be challenged
The validity of the provisions for acquisition by the State of the lands of the land owners for compensation determinable in accordance with the provisions of Sch
11 is also not liable to be challenged under article 31 read with article 31 A
In that view of the case all these petitions must fail and they are ordered to be dismissed with costs
Petitions dismissed


Summary:
The appellant paid wages to its workmen in the Carding Department on piece rate basis and in addition the workmen were entitled to receive further emoluments if their production exceeded a certain norm
The right to receive these additional emoluments had become a part of the terms of service of these workmen
In 1948 the Government of Uttar Pradesh with a view to make it obligatory on the employers in the different industries to keep the wages of workmen at a certain level by its order under the provisions of section 3 of the UP  laid down the standard of basic wages and dearness allowance for different industries in the province
The appellant in giving effect to the said order of the Government for introducing the new piece rate raised the fixed piece rate but stopped the system of paying additional emoluments as it thought itself to be justified in taking into consideration for this purpose the amounts actually earned by the workers including what had been earned as additional emoluments which were being paid to the workmen by way of productive and incentive bonuses
The workmen s case was that by stopping the additional emoluments which they used to get on the basis of better production by extra efforts the employer had in fact reduced the wages to which they were entitled and the fact that higher piece rates were introduced did not affect the question
The question was whether the Government order required or authorised the company to
include the incentive bonus and the production bonus which they had been so long paying in fixing the new piece rate for the purpose of compliance with the directions given in the Government order as regards the basic wages Held that the Government
order did not require or justify the employer including the production and incentive bonuses in the calculation of the rates of the basic wage of the workers and consequently the Government order did not have the effect of absolving the company from the duty of continuing to pay the production and incentive bonuses to workmen as before Held further that the concept of  basic  is not peculiar to wages alone it is what is normally allowable to all irrespective of special claims and is also ordinarily understood to mean that part of the price of labour which the employer must pay to all 489 workmen belonging to all categories
The phrase is used ordinarily in marked contradistinction to  dearness allowance  the quantum of which varies from time to time in accordance with the rise or fall in the cost of living
Thus understood  basic wage never includes the additional emoluments which some workmen may earn on the basis of a system of bonuses related to the production
Titaghur Paper Mills Co Ltd vs Their Workmen 1959 SUPP
2 SCR 1012 referred to