GENERAL MANAGER Vs. AUTHORITY UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE would rather begin with the caution administered by the Apex Court elsewhere that in appreciating the kind of averments/pleadings setout in an affidavit like the one filed in support of the above MC Cs, the Court shall not keep its commonsense in cold-storage and its experience at bay.

(2.) THE backdrop of the Members of the Chhattisgarh High Court Bar Association absenting from the Court proceedings on 23rd August 2006 as a mark of protest against the action of the State Government in appointing outsiders as Law Officers of the State, in brief, is as follows:

(3.) THE President and other members who had accompanied him told the Chief Justice that an outsider has been appointed as local advocates for that post and, therefore, the Bar Association had resolved that its members should abstain from the Court proceedings on 23rd August 2006 as a mark of protest. The President and other office bearers sought "co-operation" from the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court in support of their action. At 4.30 p.m., the same day all the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court met in the chamber of the Chief Justice and discussed about the resolution already passed by the Bar Association without prior consultation with or approval of the Chief Justice is abstain from the judicial work on 23rd August 2006 in the presence of Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, President of the Chhattisgarh High Court Bar Association, Shri Prashant Mishra, Chairman, State Bar Council, other office bearers and certain senior members of the Bar Association. After necessary reflection and discussion, it was unanimously felt by the Judges as well as the President of the Bar Association, the Chairman of the Chhattisgarh State Bar Council and other office bearers and members who were present that the proposed boycott of the Court is totally unconstitutional and against the binding judgment of the Supreme Court in Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India and Anr. : (2003) 2 SCC 45. It was also felt that the ground mentioned for the proposed abstention from the Court work was very flimsy and the one which does not affect in any manner the dignity or honour or solemnity or credibility of the Bar. In the premise of the above shared common opinion it was decided that it would be totally wrong, unethical and unconstitutional for the members of the Bar Association to absent from the judicial work on 23rd August 2006 and the Bar Association should withdraw its move forthwith.