Constitution of India, Art. 372 - Words "law in force" - Meaning of - Whether include regulation or order having the force of law - An order made under s. 94(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935 - Whether "law in force" and capable of adaptation - Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Act XI of 1948), s. 27 - "Appropriate Government" - Given power to add to either part of schedule - Any employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages should be fixed - Whether such power warranted and not unconstitutional and within the limits of permissible delegation - Advisory committee - Appointment of - Under s. 5 of the Act - Extension of its term beyond the period already expired - Validity - Procedural irregularities - Whether vitiate the final report. 

The words 'law in force' as used in Art. 372 of the Constitution are wide enough to include not merely a legislative enactment but also any regulation or order which has the force of law.

An order made by the Governor-General under s. 94(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, investing the Chief Commissioner with the authority to administer a province is really in the nature of a legislative provision which defines the rights and powers of the Chief Commissioner in respect of that province. Such an order comes within the purview of Art. 372 of the Constitution and being a 'law in force' immediately before the commencement of the Constitution would continue to be in force under clause (1) of the article. Such an order is capable of adaptation to bring it in accord with the constitutional provisions and this is precisely what has been done by the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950. Therefore an order made under s. 94(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, should be reckoned now as an order made under Art. 239 of the Constitution and it was within the competence of the President under clause (2) of Art. 372 to make the adaptation order.

Under s. 27 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, power has been given to the "appropriate Government" to add to either of the schedule any employment in respect of which it is of opinion that minimum wages shall be fixed by giving notification in a particular manner, and thereupon the scheme shall, in its application to the State, be deemed to be amended accordingly. There is an element of delegation implied in the provisions of s. 27 of the Act, for the Legislature, in a sense, authorises another body specified by it, to do something which it might do itself. But such delegation, if it can be so called at all, is not unwarranted and unconstitutional and it does not exceed the limits of permissible delegation.

The legislative policy is apparent on the face of the present enactment. What it aims at is the statutory fixation of minimum wages with a view to obviate the chances of exploitation of labour. It is to carry out effectively the purposes of the enact enactment that power has been given to the appropriate Government to decide with reference to local conditions whether it is desirable that minimum wages should be fixed in regard to a particular trade or industry which is not already included in the list.

Therefore in enacting s. 27 the legislature has not stripped itself of its essential powers or assigned to the administrative authority anything but an accessory or subordinate power which was deemed necessary to carry out the purpose and the policy of the Act.

Rule 3 of the rules framed under s. 30 of the Act empowers

the State Government to fix the term of the committee appointed under s. 5 of the Act and to extend it from time to time as circumstances require. 

The period originally fixed had expired and its term. extended subsequently. It did not function and submitted was no report during the period. Assuming that the subsequent order could not revive a committee which was already dead, a new committee could be held to have been constituted and the report submitted by it would be a perfectly good report. Apart from this, a committee is only an advisory body and procedural irregularities of this character could not vitiate the final report which fixed the minimum wages.

Baxter v. Ah Way (8 C.L.R. 626) and Reg. v. Burah (3 App. Cas. 889) referred to.