1. These appeals take exception to the Judgment and order dated 29th March, 2019 by which, the learned Single Judge decided writ petition Nos.8388-8417/2017 and several other connected writ petitions.

2. The writ petitions arose out of the exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short "the said Act of 1948"). Under Section 3 of the said Act, the Appropriate Government is required to fix minimum rates of wages payable to the employees, employed in any employments specified in Part-I or Part-II of the Schedule to the said Act of 1948. Section 5 of the said Act of 1948 lays down the procedure for fixing and revising minimum wages.

3. In the writ petitions filed before the learned Single Judge, which were decided by the impugned Judgment and order, there was a challenge by the employers to the Notifications issued under Sub-Section (2) read with clause (b) of Sub- Section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act of 1948 by the appropriate Government, which in this case is the State Government. These were notifications issued in respect of thirty seven (37) sectors of employment in the State in exercise of powers under Sub-Section (2) read with clause (b) of Sub- Section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act of 1948. The rates of minimum wages were fixed by the said notifications in respect of various categories of employments. Apart from that, there were three final notifications issued under sub-section (2) of Section-5 which were withdrawn by the State Government. One draft notification issued under clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section-5 of the said Act of 1948 was also withdrawn. Those four notifications were withdrawn on 22nd March 2018. The three final notifications withdrawn were in respect of Textile (silk) industry, Spinning Mills Industry, Cloth Dyeing and Printing Industry respectively which were issued on 30th December, 2017. The withdrawn draft notification dated 22nd February 2018 was in respect of Tailoring Industry. W.P.No.18621/2018 was filed by a Union for challenging the withdrawal of the said four notifications. The said writ petition was rejected by the impugned Judgment and order. Writ Appeal No.1520/2019 filed by the Union of employees arises out of said writ petition. The rest of the writ petitions were filed by the employers and/or their associations for challenging particular notifications out of the said 37 notifications. There were diverse challenges in the writ petitions which were considered by the learned Single Judge by a detailed Judgment and order which is impugned in this group of appeals. While dealing with the challenge to the Notifications by the employers, certain parts of the impugned minimum wages notifications were quashed by the learned Single Judge without disturbing the rates of minimum wages fixed there under. As far as the writ petition filed by the Union of employees is concerned, as stated earlier, the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the action of the Government of withdrawing the four notifications. However, a direction was issued to the State Government to accomplish the fixation/revision of minimum wages in respect of the sectors which were subject matter of the four withdrawn notifications within the outer limit of six months. For the sake of convenience, we are reproducing the operative portion of the impugned Judgment and order dated 29th March, 2019 which reads thus:

"For the reasons stated above, these Writ Petitions filed by the employers are allowed in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing only the following parts of the impugned Minimum Wages Notifications;

(a) That part which directs payment of Service Seniority Allowance at the rate of 1% of the minimum wages for each completed year of service or otherwise, to the employees who have put in a service of ten or more years;

(b) that part which directs the employers to pay and to continue to pay the current wages that are above the notified minimum wages subject to the rider that the downward revision, if any, shall not be below the Minimum Wages prescribed under these notifications;

(c) that part which directs payment of Minimum Wages to the supervisory staff who do not prima facie answer the definition of 'employee' under Section 2(e) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, subject to the condition that the individual claim, if any, of such employees may be processed u/s 20 of the, regardless of their designation; and

(d) that part which directs the employer to constitute and appoint the Competent Officer and the Appellate Authority for adjudication of Claims/Disputes relating to payment of minimum wages.

The interim orders granted earlier stand dissolved. The amount of wages that remain unpaid because of the interim orders shall be paid by the petitioners/employers within a period of eight weeks with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date from which the same was otherwise payable.

The Writ Petitions filed by the Employers/Trade Unions challenging withdrawal of three Minimum Wage Notifications and one Draft Notification are disposed off without interference; however, a Writ of Mandamus issues to the official respondents to accomplish the fixation/revision of minimum wages in respect of the subject sectors of employment within an outer limit of six months by issuing the Minimum Wages Notifications with retrospective effect from the respective dates from which the minimum wages would have become payable, had the impugned withdrawal notifications were not issued.

No costs."

4. Before we go to the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the parties, it will be necessary to make a reference to some of the appeals which are the part of this group.

(i) Writ Appeal No.1611/2019 is filed by the Private Hospital and Nursing Homes Association which was the petitioner in various writ petitions. There are other appellants. The first appellant is the said association of the Hospitals and Nursing Homes. The appellants were aggrieved by the impugned notification by which the minimum wages were fixed for the employees working in the Hospitals and Nursing Homes. Therefore, they had filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge.

(ii) Writ Appeal No.1272/2019 is filed by the Petitioner-Employer who is the manufacturer of writing instruments. The appellant has challenged the relevant notification fixing the minimum wages by filing a writ petition.

(iii) Writ Appeal Nos.1481 to 1519/2019 and 2761 to 2769/2019 have been preferred by the Karnataka Employers' Association and the other appellants who are the establishments under the Karnataka Shops and Establishments Act, 1961. They had filed writ petitions for challenging the minimum wages notification applicable to the said establishments.

(iv) Writ Appeal No.1520/2019 is an appeal preferred by the Union of the employees viz., All India Trade Union Congress (for short 'the Union'). The Union had filed a writ petition for challenging the notification dated 22nd March 2018 by which three final notifications dated 30th December 2017 in respect of Textile Manufacturing (silk) Industry, Spinning Mills Industry, Cloth Dyeing and printing industry and one draft notification dated 22nd February, 2018 in respect of tailoring industries, were withdrawn. By the impugned Judgment and order, the said petition has been dismissed.

(v) Writ Appeal Nos.1540 to 1566/2019 have been preferred by the Karnataka Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Manufacturers Association and others who had filed a writ petition for challenging the relevant minimum wages notification.

(vi) Writ Appeal Nos.1567 to 1601/2019 have been filed by the Karnataka Employers' Association and others. The other appellants are running Bakery and Engineering Industries, who had filed a writ petition for quashing the relevant minimum wages notification.

(vii) Writ Appeal Nos.1602 to 1604/2019 has been filed by the Board of Management of an Educational Institution which had filed a writ petition for challenging the relevant minimum wages notification.

(viii) Writ Appeal Nos. 1612 to 1618/2019 have been filed by the Automobile Dealers/Industries who had filed writ petitions challenging the relevant notification, fixing minimum wages of the employees of Automobile Industries.

(ix) Writ Appeal Nos. 1619/2019 and 2744/2019 have been filed by the Rubber Industries. The appellants had filed writ petitions challenging the minimum wages notification concerning Rubber Industry.

(x) Writ Appeal No.1620/2019 is filed by Akhila Karnataka Federation of Petroleum Traders which represents the Petrol and Diesel Oil Pumps Industries. The appellant had challenged the relevant minimum wages notification by filing writ petitions before the learned Single Judge.

(xi) Writ Appeal No.1846/2019 has been filed by the appellant which is in the business of processing Granite slabs. Even the appellant had filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge challenging the relevant minimum wages notification.

(xii) Writ Appeal Nos.1872 to 2214/2019 have been preferred by a Commercial Establishment M/s Coffee Day Global Limited which is having a chain of outlets for sale of Coffee, beverages and snacks. Even the said establishment had filed writ petitions before the learned Single Judge challenging the minimum wages notification applicable to its establishments.

(xiii) Writ Appeal Nos.2266 to 2267/2019 and 2272/2019 have been preferred by Federation of Karnataka Chamber of Commerce and Industries (for short 'FKCCI'), representing the commercial establishments. Even the appellants in these appeals were the petitioners before the learned Single Judge in writ petitions filed for challenging the relevant minimum wages notification.

(xiv) Writ Appeal No.1704/2019 has been preferred by a Commercial Establishment. The said appellant was a writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge in a writ petition filed for challenging the minimum wages notification.

(xv) Writ Appeal Nos.1765 to 1792/2019 have been filed by the Karnataka Small Scale Industries Association (for short 'KSSIA'). The appellants in these appeals had challenged the minimum wages notification concerning some of the industries by filing writ petitions.

(xvi) Writ Appeal Nos.1794 to 1825/2019 have been preferred by the appellants who belong to the category of Foundry Industries who had challenged the relevant minimum wages notification before the learned Single Judge by filing writ petitions.

(xvii) Writ Appeal No.1621/2019 is filed by a limited company coming under the category of Brass, Copper, Aluminum, Steel Utensils manufacturing industry. Even this appellant is the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge in which the challenge was to the minimum wages notification.

(xviii) Writ Appeal Nos.1623 to 1628/2019 are filed by the Industries claiming to be not specifically falling under any of the specific categories in the Schedule to the said Act of 1948. Even these appellants partially succeeded before the learned Single Judge in a challenge to the minimum wages notification.

(xix) Writ Appeal Nos.1629 to 1653/2019 have been filed by the industries falling under the category of Employment of Petrol and Diesel Oil Pumps industries. Here again, the appellants are the writ petitioners before the learned single Judge who could not succeed in their challenge to the minimum wages notification.

(xx) Writ Appeal Nos.2280 to 2281/2019 have been preferred by KSSIA along with another. The second appellant is falling under the category of Chemical Industry. The appellants are the un-successful petitioners before the learned Single Judge.

(xxi) Writ Appeal Nos.2465/2019 and 2928 to 2937/2019 have been filed FKCCI and other industries that are in the category of Metal Re-Rolling (Ferrous) Industries. The appellants were the petitioners before the learned Single Judge.

(xxii) Writ Appeal No.2466/2019 is also filed by FKCCI and six industries which are the Chemical Industries which had impugned the minimum wages notification before the learned Single Judge.

(xxiii) Writ Appeal No.2467/2019 is filed by the Manufacturers of Alcohol and distilleries. There was a challenge by the appellants before the learned Single Judge to the minimum wages notification, as in case of other industries.

(xxiv) Writ Appeal No.2468/2019 is preferred by FKCCI and other appellants belonging to the Plywood Industry who were un-successful before the learned Single Judge in challenging the relevant minimum wages notification.

(xxv) In Writ Appeal No.2546/2019, the appellant is a sugar industry which is aggrieved by the rejection of its prayer for quashing the applicable minimum wages notification.

(xxvi) Writ Appeal No.2547/2019 has been preferred by the appellant, a Sugar Industry which is manufacturing sugar. Even the appellant is the un-successful petitioner who had filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge for challenging the relevant minimum wages notification.

(xxvii) Writ appeal Nos.2667/2019 has been filed by the appellant who claims to be the manufacturer of absorbable and non-absorbable sutures, surgical meshes, gloves and other surgical equipment. It is claimed that the appellant does not fall under any of the employments covered by Part-I or Part-II of the Schedule to the said Act of 1948.

(xxviii)Writ Appeal No.2745/2019 is filed by the appellant company which engaged in buying and distributing the electricity to consumers.

(xxix) In Writ Appeal No.2683/2019, the appellants are a part of the Food Processing industry i.e., processing of food material products like pickles and preserved vegetables. Even the appellants in this appeal are the un-successful petitioners before the learned Single Judge.

(xxx) Writ Appeal No.2778/2019 and 2913 to 2915/2019 have been preferred by FKCCI and others who are similarly placed writ petitioners representing electronics industry.

(xxxi) Writ Appeal No. 2909/19 is filed by FKCCI and two others who claim that they fall in the category of employments not covered by the Schedule under the said Act of 1948. They are also unsuccessful writ petitioners.

(xxxii)Writ Appeal No.2911/2019 is preferred by FKCCI and three others who are engaged in manufacture of rubber products. The appellants were the petitioners who had challenged the relevant minimum wages notification.

(xxxiii) Writ Appeal Nos. 2779/2019 and 2898 to 2900/2019 have also been preferred by FKCCI , Bruhat Bengaluru Hotels Association and two other appellants belonging to the Hotel Industry, being aggrieved by the rejection of their prayer by the learned Single Judge for quashing the minimum wages notification.

(xxxiv) Writ Appeal No.2814/2019 is filed by Engineering Industries which claim to be covered by the provisions of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short "the said Act of 2006"). The appellants had also challenged the relevant minimum wages notification before the learned single Judge.

(xxxv) Writ Appeal Nos. 2823 to 2831/2019 have been preferred by FKCCI and others who are concerned with the minimum wages notification applicable to the employment in security agencies. Even the appellants are un-successful petitioners who failed in their challenge to the minimum wages notification applicable to them.

(xxxvi) Writ Appeal No.2910/2019 is filed by FKCCI and three others who had filed a writ petition for challenging the relevant minimum wages notification.

(xxxvii) Writ Appeal Nos. 1681 and 1682/ 2019 have been preferred by the appellants who had challenged the relevant minimum wages notification by filing a writ petition before the learned Single Judge.

DELAY IN PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT

5. We must note here that the submissions of the learned counsel in these appeals were initially concluded on 23rd August, 2019 and the judgment was reserved. The Judgment which was to be pronounced in December 2019 could not be pronounced till January 2020 due to ill health of one of us (Chief Justice). Before the Judgment could be pronounced, the learned counsel for the appellants in Writ Appeal No.1681 to 1682/2019 filed a memo dated 10th December, 2019. Along with the said memo, copies of the subsequent notifications issued by the Government on 31st October, 2019 were sought to be produced before the Court. The said notifications were in respect of four industries namely, Spinning Mills Industry, Textile Manufacturing (Garments, Costumes and Tailoring) Industry, Cloth Dyeing and Printing Industry and Textile (Silk) Industry. In case of these four industries, the earlier notifications issued were withdrawn which were the subject matter of challenge in one of the writ petitions. On 20th January, 2020, IA No.2 of 2020 was filed by the appellants in Writ Appeal No.1681 of 2019 seeking permission to produce the said fresh notifications dated 31st October, 2019 published in the official Gazette dated 14th November, 2019. The appellants contended that they were desirous of relying upon the said notifications in support of their appeals. Under such circumstances, by virtue of the order passed by this Court on 16th January, 2020, the appeals were again fixed for further hearing on 23rd January, 2020 and after conclusion of further arguments, the Judgment was again reserved on 23rd January, 2020. The Judgment was kept ready and was to be pronounced on 31st March 2020. But, it could not be pronounced due to the closure of the Courts due to corona virus pandemic.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANTS:

6. Very detailed submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the respective parties. We are reproducing the relevant submissions of the learned counsel.

7. In Writ Appeal No.1611 of 2019, which is filed by the Private Hospital and Nursing Homes Association, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants invited our attention to the impugned minimum wages notification issued by the Government dated 6th January, 2017 and in particular, clause-11 thereof which provided that wage rates stipulated in the Notification and the applicable rates of dearness allowance from time to time shall be entered in the respective columns and shall be paid. Inviting our attention to the definition of 'wages' contained in clause (h) of Section-2 of the said Act of 1948, he submitted that as long as the component of wages paid to the workmen falls within the definition of 'wages' defined in clause (h) of Section-2 and the aggregate paid is equal to or more than the aggregate of the minimum wages fixed under different heads, it should be taken that there is a sufficient compliance with the provisions of the said Act of 1948. Therefore, he submits that clause (11) of the impugned Notification is liable to be quashed. He also invited our attention to clause (3) of the impugned Notification which provides that in the event the rate of wage paid at present is higher, the payment at the said rate shall be continued and the increase in dearness allowance from time to time also shall be remitted. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Apex Court, in the case of Airfreight Limited -vs.- State of Karnataka, (1999) AIR SC 2459 = (1999)6 SCC 567 [LQ/SC/1999/680] . He submitted that though the first part of clause (3) of the impugned Notification had been quashed by the learned Single Judge, the second part as regards the payment of increase in dearness from time to time has not been quashed.

7.1 He submitted that the portion of clause (3) of the impugned notification which requires the employer to pay increased dearness allowance from time to time, even though the rate of wages paid is higher than the minimum wages, also needs to be quashed. He pointed out that even the figure of the rent taken under cost of house rent for arriving at the minimum wages is very high. 40% of the minimum wage should not have been taken as cost of house rent. Inviting attention of the Court to paragraph 28 of the statement of objections filed by the State Government, he pointed out that the State Government has relied on the sixth pay Commission report of the Karnataka State and pointed out that even when the Government fixes living wage of its employees and not the minimum wages or fair wages, the rate of house rent is taken at 30%. The submission is that for fixation of minimum wages, the house rent should always be the rent corresponding to the minimum area provided under the Government Industrial Housing Scheme. He also invited our attention to the zonewise statements relied upon by the State Government. He placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Workmen represented by Secretary -vs.- Reptakos Brett and Company Limited and another, (1992) 1 SCC 290 [LQ/SC/1991/588] which lays down that the rent corresponding to the minimum area provided for under Government Industrial Housing Scheme should be taken into consideration while fixing the minimum wages. He pointed out that the learned Single Judge, instead of taking recourse to the Government Industrial Housing Scheme, erroneously referred to affordable housing scheme for urban poor. He submitted that said scheme provides for grant of loans for buying houses. He submitted that even in the seventh pay Commission, only around six percent (6%) had been allocated for house rent allowance.

7.2 He submitted that the fixation and neutralization of dearness allowance is contrary to law and direction to pay four paise per point increased for every point increase in State average consumer price index above 5780 point is incorrect. He submitted that when the impugned notification was issued, the consumer index was 6537 points as shown at page 676 of the paper book. He submitted that the figure of 5780 points was the average points for the year 2013 and therefore, the impugned notification should have provided for asking the employer to neutralize the increase in cost of living allowance at 6537 points.

7.3 He pointed out that for the Doctors, the earlier minimum wage fixed of Rs.6966.70 which has been increased to Rs.40908.40 which comes to increase at 487.20% and whereas in case of other categories, the increase is only 75%. He submitted that an error has crept in as abnormal increase under the head cost of house (rent) has been given.

7.4 He urged that the Advisory Board constituted under section 5 (1) (b) of the said Act of 1948 has not tendered any advice to the State Government. He submitted that various other directions given under the impugned notifications regarding providing rest rooms, washing facilities, drinking water facilities, hand gloves, slippers and cleaning materials etc., are contrary to the provisions of the said Act of 1948. He pointed out that in case of three types of industries such as (i) Spinning Mills Industry, (ii) Cloth Dye and Printing Industry and (iii) Textile (Silk) Industry, the minimum wage notifications were withdrawn and in case of Tailoring Industry, the notification notifying the proposed revision of minimum wages has also been withdrawn and thereby, the State Government has indulged in hostile discrimination. He submitted that considerations for the withdrawal of the said notifications should also apply to other industries as well.

8. In Writ Appeal No.1612/2019, a memo has been filed by the learned Advocate for the appellants adopting the arguments addressed in Writ Appeal No.1611/2019. Even in Writ Appeal No.1619/2019, by filing a memo, the appellants have adopted the arguments advanced in W.A. No.1611/2019. The same is the case in W.A.No.1620/2019. Even in Writ Appeal Nos.1621/2019, 1765 to 1792/2019, 1794 to 1825/2019 and 2280-2281/2019, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants have adopted the submissions made in Writ Appeal No.1611/2019.

9. In Writ Appeal Nos. 2266/2019, 2272/2019, 2465/2019, 2466/2019, 2467/2019, 2468/2019, 2778/2019, 2779/2019, 2814/2019, 2823/2019, 2909/2019, 2910/2019 and 2911/2019, common submissions have been made. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in the said appeals invited attention of the Court to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bijay Cotton Mills Limited -vs- State of Ajmer, (1955) AIR SC 33 and pointed out that in the case before the Apex Court, the constitutional validity of the provisions of the said Act of 1948 was challenged. He pointed out that the Apex Court held that though the provisions of the said Act of 1948 interfere with the fundamental rights guaranteed under clause (g) of Article 19 (1) of the Constitution of India, the restrictions imposed therein are reasonable and are in the interests of general public. He pointed out that therefore, the Apex Court held that the restrictions are protected by clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that in view of this position, the impugned notifications issued under the said Act of 1948 will have to be strictly scrutinized, as the same curtail the fundamental rights of the employer. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Subhash Chandra - vs.- Delhi Subordinate Services, (2009) 15 SCC 458 [LQ/SC/2009/1610] and pointed out that the Apex Court held that the doctrine of strict scrutiny adopted by the Courts in United States of America will also be applicable in India. The Apex Court held that where a statute has been enacted restricting the fundamental rights of a citizen under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, the State will have to justify the reasonableness of such a statute. He, would, therefore submit that the learned Single Judge has committed an error by holding that the expression 'shall' used in Section-9 of the said Act of 1948 is not mandatory, but directory. Similarly, the findings recorded that Rules 16 and 17 of the Karnataka Minimum Wages Rules, 1958 ( for short 'the said Rules of 1958') are also not mandatory is erroneous. He submitted that there is no presumption of validity exists in favour of the impugned notifications, as held by the learned Single Judge. He further submitted that if the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the Advisory Board need not specifically discuss each and every class or category of employment is upheld, the provisions of the said Act of 1948 and the Rules framed therein will become vulnerable. He submitted that the learned Single Judge has misread the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Chandra Bhavan Boarding and Lodging, Bangalore -vs- State of Mysore and another, (1970) AIR SC 2042. He urged that as the expression 'shall' has been used in Section-9 of the said Act of 1948, the defects in constitution of the Advisory Board are not curable. He submitted that in the present case, it was demonstrated that Rule-16 and 17 of the said Rules of 1958 mandate that any decision of the Advisory Board shall be arrived at after voting and the said Rules cannot be by-passed by holding that the same is not mandatory. He submitted that if the Advisory Board ignores the views of affected parties, the same will defeat the very object of the provisions of Section 5 (1) (b) of the said Act of 1948. He submitted that merely because the high functionaries of the State Government are involved in the decision making process, no presumption under law can be attached to the said decision. He submitted that the fixation of minimum wages has to be a very strict process and therefore, the learned Single Judge could not have given approval to the retrospective operation of the impugned notification.

9.1 As regards the constitution of the Advisory Board, it was urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the representatives nominated to represent the employers have no intricate or full knowledge in relation to the nature of work and the problems faced by the specific industries. He submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to note the relevant fact that persons appointed to the Committee to represent the employees are also required to fulfill the parameters laid down for appointment. He relied upon the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation and another -vs- Tiffin s Barytes Asbestos and Paints Ltd., and another, (1985) 3 SCC 594 [LQ/SC/1985/225] . He submitted that the representation given to the employees was increased to twelve (12) members and it is not clear as to whether a member by name Mr. Raja Mohammad Fakrusabha Bhagawan was representing the employer or employees. He submitted that the relevant data furnished on behalf of the employers was not considered by the Advisory Board. He also made the same submissions about the increased house rent allowance which have been made in support of Writ Appeal No.1611/2019.

9.2 The learned counsel submitted that as compared to the neighboring States, the quantum of minimum wages in the State of Karnataka is highly excessive. He pointed out the discrepancies in the proceedings of the Advisory Board by pointing out that there was no effective participation of the Chairman of the Advisory Board. He reiterated the submissions made in Writ Appeal No.1611/2019 to the effect that there were no recommendations made about the proposed revision of minimum wages by the Advisory Board and that there was no proper consultation between the Advisory Board and the State Government before issuing the impugned notification and that the Advisory Board did not follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 16 and 17 of the said Rules of 1958. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh -vs- Babu Ram Upadhyay,1971 2 SCR 679. He submitted that the Chairman of the Advisory Board ought to have followed the procedures laid down under Rules 16 and 17 of the said Rules of 1958. He relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Karnataka Planters Association -vs.- State of Karnataka, (1986) ILR(Kar) 1787. He submitted that when the Advisory Board has not given any recommendations, the Government should not have notified the revised rates of minimum wages by issuing the impugned notifications. He submitted that the impugned notifications suffer from non-application of mind, inasmuch as the Advisory Board did not apply its mind at all. He submitted that considering the extent/quantum of raise in the minimum wages proposed, the industries will have to close down. He submitted that considering the short time within which the impugned notifications were published from the date of recommendations made by the Advisory Board, an adverse inference ought to be drawn that the entire exercise was done by the State Government in a hurried manner, without application of mind. He submitted that rise of pay/wages on account of contribution of ESI, PF and Gratuity to an extent of 100% in some cases is in gross violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that the rate of minimum wages enhanced/fixed in respect of Cinchona, Rubber, Tea and Coffee plantation industries are reasonable and affordable and therefore, there is a hostile discrimination while fixing the minimum wages of different industries. He submitted that the enactment of said Act of 1948 is based on the concept of one male member feeding his wife and two children which is now outdated. He also argued that the concept of equal opportunity, equal pay for equal work ought to have been considered by the State Government to the industry.

10. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants in Writ Appeal No.1846/2019 is more or less repetition of the submissions made in the aforesaid appeals. In addition, it is submitted that the Advisory Board has decided the cases of thirty seven (37) industries in one stretch in less than three hours. He repeated the submissions made in the other appeals that the Advisory Board did not render any recommendations. He submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the plea of the employer that indirect cost on the employer on account of exorbitant increase in the minimum wages is ignored by the State Government. He submitted that the increase of minimum wages leads to increase in contribution of the employer towards ESI, EPF and gratuity and therefore, the industries will not be in a position to supply the products at an affordable price. He also criticized the direction of the learned Single Judge with regard to payment of interest at the rate of 6%. He submitted that the rate of increase in minimum wages at an average of 60% severely compromises the competitiveness and sustainability of the industries. In Writ Appeal Nos.1872-2214/2019, 2547/2019 and 2546/2019, more or less, similar submissions have been canvassed.

11. In Writ Appeal No. 1704/2019, the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellant is more or less a repetition of the arguments canvassed by as above. Reliance was placed on some of the Judgments including the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Airfreight (supra). It was submitted that the constitutional validity of the provisions empowering the State Government to revise the minimum wages was upheld by the Constitution Bench only in view of the safeguard provided in the said Act of 1948 of the Advisory Board tendering advice. The learned counsel relied upon the comparative statement of the minimum wages fixed in various States and submitted that this table would show that minimum wages fixed in the State of Karnataka are much higher than what is fixed in the neighboring States. He pointed out that in the previous wage revision of 5th February, 2013, the average increase given was 5.61% and in July 2012, the average increase was of 20.55% and in the impugned notification, the average increase in minimum wages for skilled and semiskilled workmen is about 75%. He pointed out that the notification pertaining to Textile Industry has been withdrawn, but the notification regarding the industries which are engaged in Textile retail business of selling clothes has not been withdrawn and thereby the Government practicing discrimination.

12. In Writ Appeal No.2683/2019, the learned counsel pointed out that the impugned notification dated 16th September, 2019 revising the minimum wages in respect of appellant's industry of food processing and packaging of food products including coffee, tea and spices, the State Government has classified Tumakuru city as Zone-1 area and the reason for designation of the said area is that it is a Corporation under Section-3 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. He submitted that therefore, by the said notification, un-equals have been treated as equals by violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that there was no reason to classify Tumakuru city as falling in Zone-1 along with Bengaluru and in fact, in the subsequent notification, Tumakuru city has been placed in Zone-2. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhikusa Yamasa Kshatriya and another -vs.- Sangamner Akola Taluka Bidi Kamgar Union and others, (1963) AIR SC 806. He submitted that while fixing the rates of minimum wages, various local factors such as economic climate of the locality and general economic condition of the industrial development in the area, adequacy of wages paid and earnings in other comparable employments and similar other matters should be taken into account. He pointed out the manner in which the data from sixteen cities was collected. He submitted that the Court will have to see the economic and financial impact of its decision while deciding the cases relating to industries. He relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shivashakthi Sugars Limited - vs- Shree Renuka Sugars, (2017) 7 SCC 729 [LQ/SC/2017/815] . He submitted that the so-called data collected by the State Government of sixteen cities is selfprepared by the Government only with a view to give very high benefits to non-Bengaluru workmen. He submitted that the grounds which he urged in the pleadings and written and oral submissions made before the learned Single Judge have not been considered.

13. In support of the Writ Appeal No.1679-1682/2019, the learned counsel submitted that under the earlier notification dated 23rd January, 2012, the revision of wages for employees of the Engineering Industry was linked to the Consumer Price Index (for short 'CPI) (Industrial Workers) 1960 equivalent 100 series (CPI) (IW) and employers were liable to pay V.D.A at the rate of 4 paise per point over and above 3944 points in the CPI (IW), in addition to the basic wages to all four categories of employees in the Engineering Industries. He pointed out that since the CPI (IW) 1960 equivalent to 100 series does not exist in the State of Karnataka, the State Government has converted the CPI (IW) series of 2001 = 100 determined for five Centers in Karnataka to CIP (IW) series 1987-88 = 100 by multiplying a conversion/linking factor. He submitted that due to changes in consumption pattern, change in basket of goods of the CPI has resulted in highly unrealistic CPI if converted to 1960 = 100 series.

14. He pointed out that the earlier, the minimum wages Advisory Board, in its meeting dated 15th December, 2016 recommended to the State Government to form a Committee consisting of experts to review the Shanthappa Committee report. He pointed out that the State Government has constituted a Committee to submit a report which is yet to be received. It is submitted that the proposal to revise the minimum wages was formulated on the basis of the minimum wages revised for twenty six (26) scheduled employments in the year 2015-16 by claiming that the same were made following Shanthappa Committee report. He submitted that they arrived at erroneous figure of Rs.11, 587/- per month instead of Rs.10, 918/- per month for un-skilled workers of zone-1. He submitted that the proposed revision for semiunskilled workers of zone-1 was erroneously made at Rs.735.46 per month and for the skilled workers, the enhancement of Rs.809/- per month was made. He submitted that even in case of highly skilled worker of zone-1, salary was erroneously enhanced. He submitted that this enhancement by very high percentage is without any basis.

15. He submitted that the notes on the file clearly demonstrate that there was no material available before the Government to enable it to proceed under Section 5 (1) (b) of theof 1948. His submission is that the act of the Government in following the procedure under clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section-5 is highly erroneous and in fact, the procedure under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section-5 ought to have been followed.

16. He criticized the very constitution of the Advisory Board and made similar submissions which are made by some of the learned counsel representing the other appellants. He submitted that the constitution of the Board itself was illegal, as sufficient number of independent members were not there. He would urge that in case of Beedi, cashew, handloom and power loom (cotton) industry, the State Government had constituted a tripartite Committee for revision of minimum wages. He submitted that appointing members of these industries on the Board was itself illegal. He also pointed out the manner in which the proceedings were conducted on 6th December, 2017. He submitted that the minutes of the proceedings reveal that the Advisory Board never discussed the objections filed to any of the 37 proposals. He pointed out that the extent of minimum wages fixed in respect of other industries. He urged that the rates revised minimum wages are abnormally high which have been finalized without considering the paying capacity of the employers. He submitted that the impugned notification fixing the minimum wages for Managers, Personal Officer, Assistant Manager Etc., even though the same are out of the purview of the said Act of 1948, is illegal. He submitted the contribution made by the employer towards Provident Fund, Gratuity, need of education, recreation are being met through bonus. He stated that medical care of the employee and his family members are being met through State Insurance and the same should have been kept out while fixing the minimum wages.

17. In Writ Appeal No.1272 of 2019, while adopting the arguments addressed by the learned counsel representing the employer in Writ Appeal No.1611/2019, it was submitted that the learned Single Judge has ignored the grounds urged in writ petition No.11863/2018 filed by the appellant. The challenge was to the notification dated 30th December, 2017 in respect of the employment not covered in any of the scheduled employments. He submitted that the appellant which is the manufacturer of Pens and Pen-Pencils was never intended to be brought under Part-I or Part-II of the schedule. He submitted that the impact of such sudden increase to the extent of Rs.3, 000/- to Rs.4000/- in the wages of fresh employees will have a cascading effect on the permanent employees who have put in several years of service. He submitted that the exorbitant increase in minimum wages ranging from 52.22% to 72.88% has been granted. The learned Single Judge ignored that the State Government had already notified the basic wages and the VDA (Variable Dearness Allowance) which increases based on the cost of living index. He submitted that the necessity of having to pay cost of living allowance over consumer price index of 6537 is misconceived and in fact, any increase over and above 6843 is required to be neutralized. He submitted that Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) are providing more employment to the citizens and if they are not in a position to pay the minimum wages, they will migrate to the neighboring States. Such an exorbitant increase would not only adversely affect the economic viability of the industry but also would even lead to closure of some of the industries as unviable.

18. In Writ Appeal No.2667/2019, while adopting some of the arguments made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in Writ Appeal No.1611/2019, additional submissions are made which are similar to the submissions made in Writ Appeal No.1272/2019, as the appellant in the said appeal also falls in the same category of employment which is not covered in any of the Scheduled employment.

19. In Writ Appeal No.1611/2019 and connected matters, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the employeerespondent No.11 has made detailed submissions. He submitted that FKCCI, KASSIA and Karnataka Employers' Association who are the part of the Minimum Wages Advisory Board, are the parties to the recommendations made by the Advisory Board and therefore, they are stopped from challenging the impugned notifications. He submitted that while fixing or revising the minimum wages, the various factors will have to be taken into consideration including the directive principles of State policy as enshrined in Part-IV of the Constitution of India particularly, Articles 39, 39 (e), 42 and 43. He submitted that under Article-21 of the Constitution of India, right to life of dignity and the right to livelihood for all persons is guaranteed. He submitted that the rights envisaged under Article-21 can be protected only through the assurance of minimum wages commensurate with such life. He urged that said view is reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Bijou Cotton Mills Ltd. -vs.- State of Ajmer (supra). He submitted that in the case of Standard Vaccum Refining Co. of India - vs.- Its Workmen, (1961) AIR SC 895 the Apex Court adopted five norms for calculation of the minimum wages. Subsequently, the Apex Court expanded the same by adding a sixth norm to be considered for fixation of minimum wages in the case of Reptakos (supra). He submitted that in the case of Unichoyi (U) and others -vs- State of Kerala, (1962) AIR SC 12 the Apex Court clarified that the minimum wage is not a bare subsistence wage, but it lies above that and below the fair wage. He submitted that in the present age, a family requires a minimum of about Rs.21, 000/- per month to survive. He urged that the exercise of fixation of minimum wages is a part of Legislative Function and therefore, it cannot be decided solely on the basis of the compliance with the principles of natural justice. He relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Mangalore Ganesh Beedi and Allied Beedi Factories Workers Association -vs- State of Karnataka and others,2003 SCCOnlineKar 40 and Karnataka Planters Association (supra). He submitted that the State Government is not bound to record its reasons for fixation or revision of minimum wages. He submitted that the Apex Court, in the case of Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation and another -vs- Tiffin's Barytes Asbestos and Paints Ltd and another (supra) held that fixation of minimum wages being a social welfare measure undertaken to further the directive principles of the State policy, such action of the State cannot be struck down on mere technicalities. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Unichoyi (U) (supra), he submitted that the Writ Courts cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over the policy decision of the State Government of fixation or revision of minimum wages. He submitted that the Court does not have expertise to decide in what manner the minimum wages should be fixed and what should be the quantum thereof.

20. He submitted that any error in the composition of Advisory Board will not be a fatal to the impugned notifications issued pursuant to the advice of the Advisory Board. He submitted that the recommendations of the Advisory Board are not binding on the State Government. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Edward Mills Co. Ltd., Beawar and other -vs- State of Ajmer and another, (1955) AIR SC 25. He submitted that a note of each and every objections received by the Board was taken. He relied upon a chart which is annexed to the written submissions. He pointed out that in the meeting dated 13th May, 2016, the objections relating to the Hospitals and Nursing Homes were considered. He relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Arbuda Bhuvan Tea Shop and others -vs- State of Maharashtra and others,1992 1 LLJ 807 Bom.

21. He submitted that the State Government has an option to take recourse either to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section- 5 or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section-5 of the said Act, 1948. He submitted that as held in the case of Chandrabhavan Boarding (supra), both the provisions are nothing but the procedure for collecting necessary information/data. He pointed out that in the proceedings of the meeting of the Advisory Board dated 17th April, 2015, the employers' representatives accepted the revised rates of wages unanimously and as reflected from the proceedings of the Advisory Board meeting dated 2nd January, 2016, the representatives of the employers accepted the calculation of components of minimum wages. Drawing the attention of the Court to the various proceedings of the Advisory Board, he pointed out that in many cases, voting has been taken.

22. As regards the allegation that the rates of minimum wages fixed are on the higher side and exorbitant, he submitted that the wages fixed are consistent with the notifications issued by the Central Government, revising the minimum wages. He also pointed out the recommendations made by the 7th Pay Commission regarding minimum pay fixed in the Government service. He submitted that in any case, the writ Court cannot sit in appeal over the rates of minimum wages fixed by the State Government. He urged that the argument that the rates of minimum wages in the neighboring States are much less is not at all relevant, in the light of the law lay down by the Apex Court in the case of Unichoyi (U) (supra).

23. He submitted that the rates proposed in the draft notifications can be increased in the final notifications, as held by the Apex Court, in the case of Chandra Bhavan (Supra) and also in the decision of this Court in the case of Mangalore Ganesh Beedi (supra). His submission is that on the basis of the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 there is a statutory obligation on the persons to maintain their parents and hence, instead of taking three consumption units, five consumption units should be taken into consideration accounting for the liability to maintain the parents.

24. As regards the component of housing, he submitted that the rent of Rs.4,000/- per month taken is extremely on the lower side. He pointed out that Industrial Housing Scheme does not exist at present and therefore, Affordable Housing for the Urban Poor scheme introduced by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation has been adopted, which prescribes an area of 300-400 square feet.

25. Lastly, he relied upon the primary object of the said Act of 1948 and also the speech delivered by Doctor B.R. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly on 25th November, 1948. He also relied on the principle of transformative constitutionalism and therefore, he would submit that no interference is called for with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

26. In Writ Appeal No.1520/2019 which is preferred by the Union which arises out of the writ petition filed by the said Union, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants pointed out that the revised rate of minimum wages notification issued in respect of the Textile (silk) industry, Spinning Mills Industry and Cloth Dying and Printing Industry were illegally withdrawn. Similarly, a draft notification in respect of Tailoring Industry was withdrawn and these withdrawals were subjected to a challenge by the appellant in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. He submitted that three final notifications clearly provided that they would come into force at once and therefore, a vested right was created in favour of the employees as per the said three notifications. He submitted that there is no provision for withdrawal of the said notifications and hence, withdrawal of notifications is illegal, inasmuch as said withdrawal is against the very scheme of the said Act of 1948. He submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly negatived the arguments based on Section-21 of the General Clauses Act. He submitted that even if Section-21 of the General Clauses Act was applicable, even before withdrawing the final notification, an opportunity to submit objections ought to have been granted to the employees, but however, that was not done. He submitted that there was no reason to withdraw the draft notification, as necessary modification could have always been made by the State Government while issuing the final notification. He submitted that withdrawal of the notifications is arbitrary and is, therefore, violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India.

27. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.1520/2019 were countered by the learned senior counsel representing the employer in the said writ petition. He urged that as far as the draft notification is concerned, there is no prejudice to the employees, as the action of fixing the rate of minimum wages was not completed. He supported the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge on the issue of withdrawal of the notifications. He placed reliance on section 21 of the General Clauses Act as well as the decision of this Court in the case of L.T. Komatsu Ltd vs All India Trade Union Congress,2012 ILR(Kar) 2411 and urged that withdrawal can be made by taking recourse to Section 21. He urged that no interference is called for with the decision to withdraw the notifications.

28. In this behalf, we must refer to documents subsequently filed and taken on record in Writ Appeal No.1681/2019 along with memo dated 10th December, 2019. An application being IA-1/2020 was made in the said appeal seeking permission of the Court for production of the said documents by way of additional evidence. The said documents which are produced are four notifications dated 30th October, 2019, fixing the minimum wages in respect of Spinning Mills Industry, Textile (silk) Industry, Cloth Dyeing and printing Industry and Textile Manufacturing and Tailoring Industry. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.1681/2019 made submissions on the basis of the said fresh notifications. His submission is that before issuing those fresh notifications, recourse was taken to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section-5 by constituting Tripartite Committees. He submitted that before issuing impugned notifications in respect of the other industries, recourse ought to have taken to clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section-5. He submitted that four notifications show that after recourse was taken to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section-5, the minimum wages fixed earlier drastically came down. He would submit that the act of the State Government in taking recourse to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section-3 only in respect of selected few industries amounts to hostile discrimination which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

29. The submission of the respondents in Writ Appeal No.1681/2019 is that the said four notifications are entirely relating to the different industries which are other than the industries in respect of which the notifications have been challenged by the employers. For countering the above arguments, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Writ Appeal No.1520/2019 submitted that four notifications issued are subject to final outcome of Writ Appeal No.1520/2019 where there is a challenge to withdrawal of the notifications and therefore, he submitted that said notifications have no relevance at all. He urged that if this Court accepts that the withdrawal of the notifications was bad in law, the new notifications will cease to exist.

30. The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the writ appeals preferred by the employers is a legal ploy adopted by them to delay the payment of reasonable minimum wages to millions of workers in Karnataka and their intention is to thwart the efforts of the State Government to achieve its constitutional obligations/objects of social and economic justice. He submitted that as can be seen from the notification, the minimum wages have been enhanced in a range of Rs.8000/- to Rs.15, 000/- and the wages have been revised after four to five years. He relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Reptakos Brett (supra) and Unichoy (U) (supra). He pointed out that minimum wages in respect of scheduled employment have been fixed separately for three zones and wage structure is arrived at on the basis of the scientific research and empirical data collected by the State agencies in April, 2015. He pointed out that for three zones, the cost of food, cost of clothing, cost of miscellaneous, cost of housing and the additional components as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Reptokas Brett (supra) are different and in fact, the amounts in respect of said five components are highest in zone-1, followed by zone-2 and 3.

31. He submitted that as regards 37 draft notifications, as many as 521 objections were received and those objections were considered in the meetings of the Advisory Board held on seven different dates in relation to various industries. He pointed out that wherever needed, voting was done in the meetings of the Advisory Board. He submitted that the note sheets of the Government show that the Secretary of the Government, after making verification and also after discussions, placed the files before the Hon'ble Minister concerned, who accepted the recommendations of the Advisory Board on 23rd December, 2016. He submitted that there is nothing wrong with the constitution of the Advisory Board which has been done in strict compliance of the said Act of 1948. He submitted that the employers are bound to pay their part of contribution towards ESI and PF which is their statutory obligation.

32. As regards challenge to the withdrawal of the notifications, he submitted that firstly, there is a direction issued to the State Government by the learned Single Judge to complete the exercise of the revision of minimum wages within a period of six months. Secondly, by virtue of Section-21 of the General Clauses Act, the State Government had the authority to withdraw the notifications, especially when the notifications were in respect of the industries which were on the verge of closure due to huge losses. He would, therefore, submit that no interference is called for with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.

CONSIDERATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID ACT OF 1948:

33. Firstly, it is necessary to consider the objects of the said Act of 1948 which are summed up in the case of U.Unichoi (supra) by the Apex Court as under:

"What the purports to achieve is to prevent exploitation of labour and for that purpose authorizes the appropriate Government to take steps to prescribe minimum rates of wages in the scheduled industries. In an underdeveloped country which faces the problem of unemployment on a very large scale it is not unlikely that labour may offer to work even on starvation wages. The policy of the is to prevent the employment of such sweated labour in the interest of general public and so in prescribing the minimum wage rates the capacity of the employer need not be considered. What is being prescribed is minimum wage rates which a welfare State assumes every employer must pay before he employs labour."

Even in the case of Y.A. Mamarde vs Authority, (1972) 2 SCC 108 [LQ/SC/1972/225] the Apex Court observed thus:

"Let us first deal with this question. The Act which was enacted in 1948 has its roots in the recommendation adopted by the International Labour Conference in 1928. The object of the as stated in the preamble is to provide for fixing minimum rates of wages in certain employments and this seems to us to be clearly directed against exploitation of the ignorant, less organised and less privileged members of the society by the capitalist class. This anxiety on the part of the society for improving the general economic condition of some of its less favoured members appears to be in supersession of the old principle of absolute freedom of contract and the doctrine of laissez faire and in recognition of the new principles of social welfare and common good. Prior to our Constitution this principle was advocated by the movement for liberal employment in civilised countries and the which is a pre-Constitution measure was the offspring of that movement. Under our present Constitution the State is now expressly directed to endeavour to secure to all workers (whether agricultural, industrial or otherwise) not only bare physical subsistence but a living wage and conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure. This Directive Principle of State Policy being conducive to the general interest of the public and, therefore, to the healthy progress of the nation as a whole, merely lays down the foundation for appropriate social structure in which the labour will find its place of dignity, legitimately due to it in lieu of its contribution to the progress of national economic prosperity. The Act has since its enactment been amended on several occasions apparently to make it more and more effective in achieving its object which has since secured more firm support from the Constitution." (underlines supplied)

CONSIDERATION OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE SAID ACT OF 1948:

34. Now we turn to the scheme of the said Act of 1948. Clause (b) of Section-2 of the said Act of 1948 which is very relevant reads thus:

2. Interpretation -

"(b)"appropriate Government" means -

(i) in relation to any scheduled employment carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or a railway administration, or in relation to a mine, oil-field or major port, or any corporation established by a Central Act, the Central Government, and

(ii) in relation to any other scheduled employment, the State Government;"

35. The term "wages" has been defined in clause (h) of Section-2 of the said Act which reads thus:

"(h) "Wages" means all remuneration, capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment and includes house rent allowance, but does not include-

(i) the value of

(a) any house accommodation, supply of light, water, medical attendance, or

(b) any other amenity of any service excluded by general or special order of the appropriate Government;

(ii) any contribution paid by the employer to any Pension Fund or Provident Fund or under any scheme of social insurance;

(iii) any travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession;

(iv) any sum paid to the person employed to defray special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment; or

(v) any gratuity payable on discharge;"

36. The power of the appropriate Government to fix the minimum rates of wages and its review or revision is provided under section-3 of the said Act of 1948 which reads thus:

"3. Fixing of minimum rates of wages. - (1) The appropriate Government shall, in the manner hereinafter provided,-

(a) fix the minimum rates of wages payable to employees employed in an employment specified in Part I or Part II of the Schedule and in an employment added to either Part by notification under section 27:

Provided that the appropriate Government may, in respect of employees employed in an employment specified in Part II of the Schedule, instead of fixing minimum rates of wages under this clause for the whole State, fix such rates for a part of the State or for any specified class or classes of such employment in the whole State or part thereof;

(b) review at such intervals, as it may think fit, such intervals not exceeding five years, the minimum rates of wages so fixed and revise the minimum rates, if necessary:

Provided that where for any reason the appropriate Government has not reviewed the minimum rates of wages fixed by it in respect of any scheduled employment within any interval of five years, nothing contained in this clause shall be deemed to prevent it from reviewing the minimum rates after the expiry of the said period of five years and revising them, if necessary, and until they are so revised the minimum rates in force immediately before the expiry of the said period of five years shall continue in force.

(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), the appropriate Government may refrain from fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled employment in which there are in the whole State less than one thousand employees engaged in such employment, but if at any time, the appropriate Government comes to a finding after such inquiry, as it may make or cause to be made in this behalf, that the number of employees in any scheduled employment in respect of which it has refrained from fixing minimum rates of wages has risen to one thousand or more, it shall fix minimum rates of wages payable to employees in such employment as soon as may be after such finding".

37. In the present case, there is no dispute that the appropriate Government is the State Government. As per clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section-3, the minimum wages fixed in accordance with clause (a) can be revised at such intervals which can be of maximum five years. The proviso makes it clear that even if the rates of minimum wages are not revised for a period of five years, it will not prevent the State Government from revising it. If the State Government does not revise the same for unreasonably long time, it may amount to forced labour of the concerned employees thereby resulting in violation of Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India.

Section-4 which empowers the Government to fix the rates of minimum wages is also relevant which reads thus:

"4. Minimum rate of wages. - (1) Any minimum rate of wages fixed or revised by the appropriate Government in respect of scheduled employments under section 3 may consist of -

(i) a basic rate of wages and a special allowance at a rate to be adjusted, at such intervals and in such manner as the appropriate Government may direct, to accord as nearly as practicable with the variation in the cost of living index number applicable to such workers (hereinafter referred to as the "cost of living allowance"); or

(ii) a basic rate of wages with or without the cost of living allowance, and the cash value of the concessions in respect of supplies of essential commodities at concession rates, where so authorized; or

(iii) an all-inclusive rate allowing for the basic rate, the cost of living allowance and the cash value of the concessions, if any.

(2) The cost of living allowance and the cash value of the concessions in respect of supplies of essential commodities at concession rates shall be computed by the competent authority at such intervals and in accordance with such directions as may be specified or given by the appropriate Government."

38. The most relevant section for our consideration is Section-5 of the said Act of 1948 which reads thus:

"5. Procedure for fixing and revising minimum wages. - (1) In fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled employment for the first time under this Act or in revising minimum rates of wages so fixed, the appropriate Government shall either-

(a) appoint as many committees and subcommittees as it considers necessary to hold enquiries and advise it in respect of such fixation or revision, as the case may be, or

(b) by notification in the Official Gazette, publish its proposals for the information of persons likely to be affected thereby and specify a date, not less than two months from the date of the notification, on which the proposals will be taken into consideration.

(2) After considering the advice of the committee or committees appointed under clause (a) of sub-section (1), or as the case may be, all representations received by it before the date specified in the notification under clause (b) of that sub-section, the appropriate Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix, or, as the case may be, revise the minimum rates of wages in respect of each scheduled employment, and unless such notification otherwise provides, it shall come into force on the expiry of three months from the date of its issue:

Provided that where the appropriate Government proposes to revise the minimum rates of wages by the mode specified in clause (b) of subsection (1), the appropriate Government shall consult the Advisory Board also."

39. The word 'either' used in sub-section (1) of Section-5 clearly indicates that there are two options provided to the Appropriate Government under clause (a) and (b). The Appropriate Government has a discretion either to take recourse to clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 5. Under clause (a), the Appropriate Government has an option for appointing a Committee or sub-Committees to hold an enquiry and advise the Government in respect of fixation of minimum wages or its revision. The Appropriate Government has a choice of the aforesaid of two options. If the option under clause- (b) is opted for, the Appropriate Government has to publish its proposals of fixation of minimum wages for the information of the persons likely to be affected thereby. When clause (b) is adopted, it is mandatory for the Appropriate Government to consult the Advisory Board. When recourse is taken to clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 5, still the Advisory Board has some role to play in view of Section 7 which provides that the said Board has the responsibility of coordinating the work of Committees and Sub-Committees appointed under clause (a) of Sub-Section(1) of Section 5 of the said Act of 1948.

The provision regarding composition of the Committees and Advisory Board is under Section-9 of the said Act of 1948 which reads thus:

"9. Composition of committees, etc. -

Each of the committees, sub-committees and the Advisory Board shall consist of persons to be nominated by the appropriate Government representing employers and employees in the scheduled employments, who shall be equal in number, and independent persons not exceeding one-third of its total number of members; one of such independent persons shall be appointed the Chairman by the appropriate Government."

40. As can be seen from clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section-3 of the said Act of 1948, the power to fix the rates of minimum wages can be exercised in relation to the employees employed in the employments specified in Part-I or Part-II of the schedule to the said Act of 1948 and in respect of employments added to one of the two parts of the shedule by exercising the power under Section-27.

IMPORTANT DECISIONS OF THE COURTS

41. Before we specifically deal with the submissions canvassed across the Bar, it will be necessary to refer to some of the well known decisions of the Apex Court which have interpreted the provisions of the said Act of 1948. We have already quoted two decisions of the Apex Court which elaborately lay down the objects sought to be achieved by the said Act of 1948.

42. A leading judgment on what constitutes the minimum wages is in the case of Reptakos Brett (supra). In paragraph- 8, the Apex Court held that the wage structure can be divided into three categories - (i) minimum wage which provides bare subsistence, (ii) fair wage and (iii) living wage. The Apex Court quoted with the approval the five norms for fixation of minimum wages laid down by the Tripartite Committee of the Indian Labour Conference. The norms were laid down in the year 1957. Apart from five norms prescribed by the Tripartite Committee, the Apex Court added an additional norm. Paragraphs-10, 11, 12 and 13 of the said decision of the Apex Court which are relevant read thus:

"10. The Tripartite Committee of the Indian Labour Conference held in New Delhi in 1957 declared the wage policy which was to be followed during the Second Five Year Plan. The Committee accepted the following five norms for the fixation of 'minimum wage':

"(i) In calculating the minimum wage, the standard working class family should be taken to consist of 3 consumption units for one earner; the earnings of women, children and adolescents should be disregarded.

(ii) Minimum food requirement should be calculated on the basis of a net intake of calories, as recommended by Dr Aykroyd for an average Indian adult of moderate activity.

(iii) Clothing requirements should be estimated at per capita consumption of 18 yards per annum which would give for the average workers' family of four, a total of 72 yards.

(iv) In respect of housing, the rent corresponding to the minimum area provided for under Government's Industrial Housing Scheme should be taken into consideration in fixing the minimum wage.

(v) Fuel, lighting and other 'miscellaneous' items of expenditure should constitute 20 per cent of the total minimum wage."

11. This Court in Standard Vacuum Refining Company case, (1961) 3 SCR 536 [LQ/SC/1961/25] : AIR 1961 SC 895 [LQ/SC/1961/25] : (1961) 2 LLJ 227 has referred to the above norms with approval.

12. The concept of 'minimum wage' is no longer the same as it was in 1936. Even 1957 is way behind. A worker's wage is no longer a contract between an employer and an employee. It has the force of collective bargaining under the labour laws. Each category of the wage structure has to be tested at the anvil of social justice which is the live-fibre of our society today. Keeping in view the socio-economic aspect of the wage structure, we are of the view that it is necessary to add the following additional component as a guide for fixing the minimum wage in the industry:

"(vi) children's education, medical requirement minimum recreation including festivals/ceremonies and provision for old age marriages etc. should further constitute 25 per cent of the total minimum wage."

13. The wage structure which approximately answers the above six components is nothing more than a minimum wage at subsistence level. The employees are entitled to the minimum wage at all times and under all circumstances. An employer who cannot pay the minimum wage has no right to engage labour and no justification to run the industry".

(underlines supplied)

As per the above dictum of the Apex Court, the wage structure which approximately answers the above mentioned six components is nothing more than a minimum wage at subsistence level. We must note that five components laid down by the Tripartite Committee were approved by the Apex Court, in its earlier Judgment in the case of Standard Vaccum Refining (supra).

43. In the case of Bijay Cotton Mills (Supra), the Apex Court considered the challenge to the constitutional validity of various provisions of the said Act of 1948 on the ground of violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under subclause (g) of clause (1) of Article-19 of the Constitution of India. The argument of the employer was that the provisions of the said Act of 1948 put unreasonable restrictions upon the rights of the employer to carry on business and that employer has been prevented from carrying on business or trade unless he is prepared to pay minimum wages fixed under the said Act of 1948. While rejecting the said challenge, in paragraphs-4 and 5, the Apex Court held thus:

"4. It can scarcely be disputed that securing of living wages to labourers which ensure not only bare physical subsistence but also the maintenance of health and decency, is conducive to the general interest of the public. This is one of the Directive Principles of State Policy embodied in Article 43 of our Constitution. It is well known that in 1928 there was a Minimum Wages Fixing Machinery Convention held at Geneva and the resolutions passed in that convention were embodied in the International Labour Code. The Minimum Wages Act is said to have been passed with a view to give effect to these resolutions [ Vide SI Est etc. v. State of Madras, (1954) 1 MadLJ 518 at page 521] . If the labourers are to be secured in the enjoyment of minimum wages and they are to be protected against exploitation by their employers, it is absolutely necessary that restraints should be imposed upon their freedom of contract and such restrictions cannot in any sense be said to be unreasonable. On the other hand, the employers cannot be heard to complain if they are compelled to pay minimum wages to their labourers even though the labourers, on account of their poverty and helplessness are willing to work on lesser wages.

5. We could not really appreciate the argument of Mr Seervai that the provisions of the are bound to affect harshly and even oppressively a particular class of employers who for purely economic reasons are unable to pay the minimum wages fixed by the authorities but have absolutely no dishonest intention of exploiting their labourers. If it is in the interest of the general public that the labourers should be secured adequate living wages, the intentions of the employers whether good or bad are really irrelevant. Individual employers might find it difficult to carry on the business on the basis of the minimum wages fixed under the but this must be due entirely to the economic conditions of these particular employers. That cannot be a reason for the striking down the law itself as unreasonable."

(underlines supplied)

44. In the case of Chandra Bhawan Boarding (supra), the challenge was to clauses (a) and (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section-5 of the said Act of 1948 on the ground that the same infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article-14 of the Constitution of India. It was urged that Section 5 confers unguided and uncontrolled discretion on the Government to follow one of the two procedures prescribed under clause (a) and (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section-5 of the said Act of 1948 to enquire into the matter of fixing the minimum rates of wages. If recourse to clause (a) is not taken, then it will amount to fixing the minimum wages arbitrarily. Further, it was contended that fixation of minimum wages is quasi judicial act and therefore, the principles of natural justice must be followed. In the said case, the power of the appropriate Government to fix the different minimum wages for different industries and its power to fix the different rates of minimum wages for different zones was also questioned. In paragraph-9, the Apex Court negatived the challenge on the ground that the decision taken by the Government under sub-section (1) of Section-5 cannot be termed as either unguided or arbitrary. Paragraph-9 of the decision of the Apex Court read thus:

"9. We have earlier noticed the circumstances under which the came to be enacted. Its main object is to prevent sweated labour as well as exploitation of unorganised labour. It proceeds on the basis that it is the duty of the State to see that at least minimum wages are paid to the employees irrespective of the capacity of the industry or unit to pay the same. The mandate of Article 43 of the Constitution is that the State should endeavour to secure by suitable legislation or economic organization or in any other way, to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise work, a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities. The fixing of minimum wages is just the first step in that direction. In course of time the State has to take many more steps to implement that mandate. As seen earlier that resolutions of the Geneva Convention of 1928, which had been accepted by this country called upon the covenanting States to fix minimum wages for the employees in employments where the labour is unorganised or where the wages paid are low. Minimum wages does not mean wage just sufficient for bare sustenance. At present the conception of a minimum wage is a wage which is somewhat intermediate to a wage which is just sufficient for bare sustenance and a fair wage. That concept includes not only the wage sufficient to meet the bare sustenance of an employee and his family, it also includes expenses necessary for his other primary needs such as medical expenses, expenses to meet some education for his children and in some cases transport charges etc. see Unnicheyi v. State of Kerala, (1962) 1 SCR 946 [LQ/SC/1961/183] The concept of minimum wage is likely to undergo a change with the growth of our economy and with the change in the standard of living. It is not a static concept. Its concomitants must necessarily increase with the progress of the society. It is likely to differ from place to place and from industry to industry. That is clear from the provisions of the itself and is inherent in the very concept. That being the case it is absolutely impossible for the legislature to undertake the task of fixing minimum wages in respect of any industry much less in respect of an employment. That process must necessarily be left to the Government. Before minimum wages in any employment can be fixed it will be necessary to collect considerable data. That cannot be done by the legislature. It can be best done by the Government. The legislature has determined the legislative policy and formulated the same as a binding rule of conduct. The legislative policy is enumerated with sufficient clearness. The Government is merely charged with the duty of implementing that policy. There is no basis for saying that the legislature had abdicated any of its legislative functions. The legislature has prescribed two different procedures for collecting the necessary data, one contained in Section 5(1)(a) and the other in Section 5(1)(b). In either case it is merely a procedure for gathering the necessary information. The Government is not bound by the advice given by the committee appointed under Section 5(1)(a). Discretion to select one of the two procedures prescribed for collecting the data is advisedly left to the Government. In the case of a particular employment, the Government may have sufficient data in its possession to enable it to formulate proposals under Section (5)(1)(b). Therefore it may not be necessary for it to constitute a committee to tender advice to it but in the case of another employment it may not be in possession of sufficient data. Therefore it might be necessary for it to constitute a committee to collect the data and tender its advice. If the Government is satisfied that it has enough material before it to enable it to proceed under Section 5(1)(b) it can very well do so. Which procedure should be adopted in any particular employment depends on the nature of the employment and the information the Government has in its possession about that employment. Hence the powers conferred on the Government cannot be considered as either unguided or arbitrary. In the instant case as seen earlier the question of fixing wages for the various categories of employees in residential hotels and eating houses was before the Government from 1960 and the Government had taken various steps in that regard. It is reasonable to assume that by the time the Government published the proposals in pursuance of which the impugned notification was issued it had before it adequate material on the basis of which it could formulate its proposals. Before publishing those proposals, the Government had consulted the advisory committee constituted under Section 7. Under those circumstances we are unable to accede to the contention that either the power conferred under Section 5(1) is an arbitrary power or that the same had been arbitrarily exercised".

(underlines added)

The Apex Court did not specifically examine the question whether the power to grant minimum wages is a quasi judicial power or not. The Apex Court dealt with the contention that after the proposals containing the rates of minimum wages are published, the State Government was not competent to enhance the rates of minimum wages. In paragraph-15, the Court held thus:

"15. Taking into consideration the provisions of the, the objective behind the, the purposes intended to be achieved and the high authority on whom the power is conferred, we have no doubt that the procedure adopted was adequate and effective. We have equally no doubt that reasonable opportunity had been given to all the concerned parties to represent their case. We are unable to agree that the impugned order is vitiated because of the Government's failure to constitute a committee under Section 5(1)(a). We see no substance in the contention that the Government is not competent to enhance the rate of wages mentioned in the proposals published. If it has power to reduce those rates, as desired by the employers, it necessarily follows that it has power to enhance them. There is no merit in the contention that the Government must go on publishing proposals after proposals until a stage is reached where no change whatsoever is necessary to be made in the last proposal made".

(underlines supplied)

In the above case, the Apex Court held that different zones can be fixed on rational basis.

45. Another decision which is relevant is in the case of Unichoyi (U) (supra) in which again, the Apex Court considered what are the components of minimum wages. In paragraph-13, the Apex Court has considered this aspect and ruled thus:

"13. It is, therefore, necessary to consider what are the components of a minimum wage in the context of the. The evidence led before the Committee on Fair Wages showed that some witnesses were inclined to take the view that the minimum wage is that wage which is essential to cover the bare physical needs of a worker and his family, whereas the overwhelming majority of witnesses agreed that a minimum wage should also provide for some other essential requirements such as a minimum of education, medical facilities and other amenities. The Committee came to the conclusion that a minimum wage must provide not merely for the bare subsistence of life but for the preservation of the efficiency of the worker, and so it must also provide for some measure of education, medical requirements and amenities. The concept about the components of the minimum wage thus enunciated by the Committee have been generally accepted by industrial adjudication in this country. Sometimes the minimum wage is described as a bare minimum wage in order to distinguish it from the wage structure which is 'subsistence plus' or fair wage, but too much emphasis on the adjective "bare" in relation to the minimum wage is apt to lead to the erroneous assumption that the maintenance wage is a wage which enables the worker to cover his bare physical needs and keep himself just above starvation. That clearly is not intended by the concept of minimum wage. On the other hand, since the capacity of the employer to pay is treated as irrelevant, it is but right that no addition should be made to the components of the minimum wage which would take the minimum wage near the lower level of the fair wage, but the contents of this concept must ensure for the employee not only his sustenance and that of his family but must also preserve his efficiency as a worker. The Act contemplates that minimum wage rates should be fixed in the scheduled industries with the dual object of providing sustenance and maintenance of the worker and his family and preserving his efficiency as a worker".

(underlines added)

On the question of interference by the writ Court with the minimum wages fixed by the appropriate Government, the Apex Court, in paragraph-17 of the said decision held thus:

"17. Mr Nambiar no doubt wanted to attack the merits of the notification on the ground that the wage rates fixed by it are unduly high. In that connection he relied on the fact that the minimum wage rates prescribed by the Madras Government by its notification published on February 25, 1952, as well as the wage rates prevailing in other industries in Kerala were slightly lower. He also pointed out that the wage rates awarded by industrial adjudication and even the claims made by the employees themselves would tend to show that what has been awarded by the notification is higher than the prescribed minimum wages. It is not possible for us to entertain this contention. The determination of minimum wages must inevitably take into account several relevant factors and the decision of this question has been left by the Legislature to the Committee which has to be appointed under the. We have already referred to the composition of the Committee and have reviewed very briefly its report. When a Committee consisting of the representatives of the industry and the employees considers the problem and makes its recommendations and when the said recommendations are accepted by the Government, it would ordinarily not be possible for us to examine the merits of the recommendations as well as the merits of the wage structure finally notified by the Government. The notification has accepted the recommendations of the Committee to categorise the workers and that obviously was overdue. The fact that wages paid in other industries in Kerala, or in other States in comparable concerns, are lower and would have been relevant for the Committee to consider when it made its recommendations. In appreciating the effect of the prevalence of lower rates it may also be relevant to bear in mind that in some places and in some industries, labour is still employed on wages much below the standard of minimum rates. In fact, in its report the Committee has pointed out that in Kerala the bargaining position of the workers has all along been very weak and wages have tended to remain in a deplorably low level. Therefore, the fact that lower wages are paid in other industries or in some other places may not necessarily show that the rates prescribed by the notification are unduly high. In any event these are considerations which ordinarily cannot be entertained by us because obviously we are not sitting in appeal over the recommendations of the Committee or the notification following upon them. That is why the grievance made by Mr Nambiar on the merits of the wage structure prescribed by the notification cannot succeed".

(underlines supplied)

The Apex Court was of the view that when the Committee consisting of the representatives of the industry/employers and the representatives of the employees considers the problem and makes its recommendations and when the recommendations are accepted by the Government, it would ordinarily not be possible for the writ Court to examine the merits of the recommendations as well as the merits of the wage structure finally notified by the Government.

46. Another case which needs to be noted at this stage is People's Union for Democratic Rights and others -vs- Union of India and others, (1982) AIR SC 1473 which is popularly known as 'Asian Games workers' case'. In the said decision, the Apex Court held that when an employer provides labour or service to another for a remuneration which is less than the prescribed minimum wages, the labour or service provided by the employer clearly falls within the scope and ambit of the words "forced labour" under Article-23.

47. In its decision in the case of Association of Planters of Kerala -vs- State, (1996) 74 FLR 2288 [LQ/KerHC/1996/90] the Kerala High Court held that in view of the provisions of Section 3 (1) (b) and Article-23, it is the duty of the appropriate Government to revise the rates of minimum wages retrospectively.

48. In the case of Ministry of Labour and rehabilitation (supra), the Apex Court held that notification fixing the rates of minimum wages are not be lightly interfered with under Article- 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of some irregularities in constitution of the Committee or in the procedure adopted by the Committee. It was held that the Committee acts only as a recommendatory body to recommend the structure of minimum wages and ultimately, the decision has to be taken by the appropriate State Government. It was also held that a notification fixing minimum wages, in a country where wages are already minimal, should not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India except on the most substantial of grounds. It was held that the minimum wages fixed pursuant to the social welfare legislation undertaken to further the Directive Principles of State Policy cannot be struck down on the ground of mere technicalities.

49. In the light of the broad legal principles laid down by the Apex Court as well as the High Court which are referred above, now we proceed to deal with the submissions canvassed by the respective counsel on merits of the controversy.

CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS: LEGALITY OF WITHDRAWAL OF FOUR NOTIFICATIONS

50. Firstly, we deal with the issue involved in Writ Appeal No.1520/2019. This appeal arose out of writ petition No. 18621/2018 filed by the Union. In the said writ petition, the challenge was to the order/notification dated 22nd March, 2018 passed by the State Government, withdrawing four notifications. By the said order, the four notifications were withdrawn with immediate effect. The English translation of the said notification reads thus:

"Proceedings of the government of Karnataka Sub: Regarding formation of tripartite committee to decide withdrawal of Notification issued under provisions of Minimum Wages Act 1948 Section (1) (b) and fixing of Minimum Wages as per Minimum Wages Act 1948 Section 5 (1) (b) for the four notified trades of "Spinning Mill Industries, Cloth Dyeing and Printing, Tailoring Industry and Textile (Silk) Industry".

Read with: Letter No. Ka.VeKa-2/Eathare- 33/Spi.Mi/2017-18 dated 01.02.2018 of Labour Commissioner:

Preamble: With reference to the above, while comparing the Minimum Wages as published in the final notification dated 30.12.2017 by the Government of Karnataka with Minimum Wages of other States in respect of "Spinning Mill Industries, Cloth Dyeing and Printing, Tailoring Industry and Textile (Silk) Industry" is observed to be higher and this would affect adversely the trade, the Textile and Garments industry is facing competition at the international level, in this trade labour expenses being 25 to 30 percent, it was appealed by the employers that this notification be withdrawn.

The appeal was forwarded to Labour Commissioner for information and instructed to furnish report. Hence, the Labour Commissioner has furnished the report under reference. It is explained that works in Spinning Mill Industries, Cloth Dyeing and Printing, Tailoring Industry and Textile (Silk) Industry being similar in nature, if all these specified employments notified industries are in one section, when workers receive differing wages, discrimination feeling would arise, industrial disputes may emerge. Hence, Minimum Wages revised in one stretch, chances of arising of industrial disputes is less. Considering these aspects specified employments in "Spinning Mill Industries, Cloth Dyeing and Printing, Tailoring Industry and Textile (Silk) Industry and Tailoring Industries may fix common minimum wages, withdrawal of notification under Minimum Wages Act 1948 Section. 5(1)(b), to constitute a tripartite committee under Minimum Wages Act 1948 Sec. 5(1)(a).

Government of Karnataka has taken action to revise minimum wages for these four (4) scheduled employments.

Table-1 minimum wages notification of Government of Karnataka

S l N o Scheduled employment in Notification No and Date Remarks 1 Textiles (Silk) Industry KaEe 22 LMW 2017 Dated 30-12-2017 Final Notification Issued 2 Spinning Mills Industry KaEe 21 LMW 2017 Dated 30-12-2017 Final Notification Issued - 286 - 3 Cloth Dyeing and Printing industry KaEe 29 LMW 2017 Dated 30-12-2017 Final Notification Issued 4 Tailoring industry KaEe 76 LMW 2017 Dated 22-02-2018 Draft Notification Released

The above Notifications are issued as per Minimum Wages Act 1948 Section (1) (b). In the combined Textile industry, rates of Minimum wages finalized for some scheduled employments and for others the processes of fixing Minimum Wages are under revision. The Government is convinced that this may lead to discrimination in the workers in the combined Textile industry and create industrial relation problems. In this background, the Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Minimum Wages Act 1948 has decided to withdraw the above Notifications in Table - 1. In the same circumstance, the Government in exercise of its powers conferred by the Minimum Wages Act 1948 Sec.5 (1) (a) has decided to constitute general tripartite committee to revise common minimum wages for the combined scheduled employments indicated in Table-1, and constituted the tripartite committee vide Government Order No.KaEe21 LMW 2017, Bengaluru, dated 22-03-2018.

Considering the Labour Commissioners preludes and all related factors, the following order is issued.

Government Order No. KaEe 21 LMW 2017 (1), Bengaluru Date.22-03-2018 In the background of the above proposal, the following Notifications are withdrawn with immediate effect. It is ordered that till the Government issues further notification based on the report of the tripartite committee, for the scheduled employment applicable minimum wages as per existing minimum wages notifications would be implemented. Sl No Scheduled employment in Notification No and Date Remarks 1 Spinning Mills Industry KaEe 21 LMW 2017 Dated 30-12-2017 Final Notification withdrawn 2 Cloth Dyeing and Printing industry KaEe 21 LMW 2017 Dated 30-12-2017 Final Notification withdrawn 3 Textiles (Silk) Industry KaEe 29 LMW 2017 Dated 30-12-2017 Final Notification withdrawn 4 Tailoring industry KaEe 76 LMW 2017 Dated 22-02-2018 Final Notification withdrawn By order in the name of The Governor of Karnataka Sd/- (G.M. Siddaraju) Under Secretary to Government, Labour Department. Date:22-03-2018" (Underline added)

51. As stated therein, the first, second and third notifications withdrawn were of 30th December, 2017 issued under Sub- Section (2) of Section 5 of the said Act of 1948, fixing the rates of minimum wages in respect of (i) Textile (silk) industry, (ii) Spinning Mills Industry and (iii) Cloth Dyeing and Printing Industry. The fourth notification which was withdrawn is of 22nd February, 2018 which is not a final notification but it is a draft notification issued by the Government, as contemplated by clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section-5 of the said Act of 1948, by which, the State Government published its proposals for revision of minimum wages in respect of the Textile Manufacturing (Garments, Costumes and Tailoring) Industry. It is observed in the impugned notification/order of withdrawal of the four notifications that the rates of minimum wages fixed under three notifications dated 30th December, 2017, in respect of the aforesaid three industries were higher than the rates of minimum wages fixed in the other States. It is also observed therein that an appeal was made by the employers seeking withdrawal of the notification. Therefore, a report was called from the Labour Commissioner and ultimately, it was decided to withdraw the notifications and resolved to constitute Tripartite Committees, as contemplated under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section-5.

52. It must be noted here that by the said three withdrawal notifications dated 30th December, 2017, the rates of minimum wages fixed there under were made effective from the date of publication of the said notifications. Thus, in the writ petition subject matter of Writ Appeal No.1520/2019, the issue raised was regarding the existence of power vesting with the State Government to withdraw a final notification as well as a draft notification. The submission of the appellants is that a vested right was created in favour of the employees with effect from 30th December, 2017, as the employees became entitled to minimum wages fixed under the three final notifications with effect from 30th December, 2017 and said vested rights could not be taken away nearly three months thereafter by issuing the impugned notification on 22nd March, 2018.

53. The learned Single Judge negatived the challenge to the impugned notification of withdrawal for the reasons contained in paragraph-25 of the impugned judgment. Firstly, the learned Single Judge held that by exercising power under Section-21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 or Section-21 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899, the notifications could not have been withdrawn, as the same created a vested right in the employees. However, the learned Single Judge, by referring to the power of the State Government under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section-3 of the said Act of 1948 which empowers the Government to review the minimum wages fixed, held that as the impugned notification/order mentioned the reasons necessitated for such review, the withdrawal of the said notifications amounts to review and it was a step in aid of revising the minimum wages. The learned Single Judge held that the power to fix the minimum wages is not a quasi judicial power and such exercise of fixing the minimum wages is a Legislative/Quasi Legislative function. Therefore, there was no question of giving an opportunity of being heard to the employees affected by such withdrawal.

54. Firstly, we deal with the arguments based on Section-21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (for short "the said Act of 1897). Section-21 of the said Act reads thus:

"21. Power to issue, to include power to add to, amend, vary or rescind notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws. - Where, by any Central Act or Regulations a power to issue notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws is conferred, then that power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions if any, to add to, amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws so issued."

(underlines supplied)

55. Section-21 of the said Act has been judicially interpreted in several decisions of the Apex Court and those decisions were considered by a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of L and T Komatsu Ltd.(supra). After considering large number of the decisions of the Apex Court, in paragraph-38, the Division Bench summarized the law as under:

"38. From the aforesaid discussion it is clear that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act applies only when in an enactment there is no specific provision providing for what is provided in Section 21 of the. In order to find out whether such a provision exists, the scheme of the is to be scrutinized. If there is no indication of any such power expressly or by implication then Section 21 of the General Clauses Act has to be read into the said enactment. If an order is passed under a particular statute and if it is given effect to, acted upon, consequential further steps are taken in accordance with law, and third party interests are created, then rescinding or revoking such an order, at that stage, would have serious consequences. Then in those circumstances it cannot be said that the power to issue notification includes the power to rescind or revoke. In the absence of a specific provision providing for such recession or revocation and an express or implied bar for such recession or revocation, Section 21 of the General Clauses Act applies, and such a power is to be read into such enactment. Otherwise, the very object of enacting this piece of Legislation becomes redundant. Ultimately the applicability of Section 21 of thedepends on the scheme of the, the nature of power conferred, the object sought to be achieved and the language employed in the said provision. Broadly stated, Section 21 of the Act, applies as a rule, non application is an exception. To exclude the application of the general rule, there must be an exceptional circumstance. Section 21 is based on the principle that power to create includes the power to destroy and also the power to alter what is created. The power to rescind a notification is inherent in the power to issue the notification without any limitations or conditions. Section 21 embodies a rule of construction. The nature and extent of its application must be governed by the relevant statute which confers the power to issue the notification. When a power is conferred on an authority to do a particular act, such power can be exercised from time to time and carries with it the power to withdraw, modify, amend or cancel the notifications earlier issued, to be exercised in the like manner and subject to like conditions, if any, attached with the exercise of the power. This legal position is in no way denuded merely because the notification issued under an enactment was the subject matter of litigation and the validity of such notification has been upheld by a Court."

(underlines supplied)

56. As held by the Division Bench of this Court, Section-21 will apply only when in a statute, there is no specific provision providing for what is provided in Section 21. Section 21 provides that when there is a power to issue notifications or orders, such power includes a power to vary or rescind such notifications or orders. However, the said power to vary or rescind is exercisable in the like manner and subject to like conditions, on which, the notifications or orders are issued. The decision of the Division Bench holds that power conferred under Section 21 can be exercised only when there is no specific provision to do what can be under Section-21 of the said Act of 1897. The exception to the exercise of power under Section 21 of rescinding notifications or orders is in a case where an order passed under a particular statute is already given effect and third party interests are created. The reason is that in such a case, the exercise of the power of rescinding the notifications or orders will have serious consequences. In such contingency, it cannot be said that the power to issue notifications includes the power to rescind or revoke the same.

57. Therefore, we will have to ascertain whether under the said Act of 1948, there is a power to do what can be done under Section-21 of the said Act of 1897. Under clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section-3 of the said Act of 1948, which is already quoted above, the appropriate Government is empowered not only to fix the rates of minimum wages but also to revise the rates of minimum wages, if necessary. As can be seen from sub-section (2) of Section-5, it confers on the appropriate Government, a power to fix the rates of minimum wages in respect of the scheduled employment and power to revise such rates of minimum wages. In the case on hand, the statute has itself conferred a power on the appropriate Government to review/revise the rates of minimum wages and such power also includes power to increase or reduce the rates of minimum wages. Therefore, when a final notification is issued under sub-section (2) of Section-5 of the said Act of 1948 of fixing or revising the rates of minimum wages in respect of a scheduled employment, the power to revise the same either by enhancing the rates or reducing the rates vests with the Appropriate Government. There is a power to revise the rates of minimum wages even by reducing the same by exercise of power conferred under Sub-Section (2) of Section- 5, after following the procedure under Sub-Section (1) of Section-5. The power to review or revise the minimum wages fixed, however, cannot be exercised by withdrawing the final notifications. Hence, the act of withdrawal of the final notifications cannot be termed as a step in aid of revision of the rates. The revision can be made only by following the procedure prescribed in Section 5 of the said Act of 1948. Therefore, in case of a final notifications fixing the rates of minimum wages under sub-section (2) of Section-5, there is a specific power conferred on the government to review or revise the same and therefore, in case of final notifications issued fixing the rates of minimum wages, for revising or reviewing the same, recourse to Section 21 of the said Act of 1897 cannot be taken. However, in case of a notification published under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section-5 of the said Act of 1948, by which, the proposals of the State Government are published, the legal position may be different which we are discussing separately.

58. Even assuming that the power under Section-21 of the said Act of 1897 can be exercised for rescinding the final notifications issued fixing the rates of minimum wages, as provided in Section-21, the procedure prescribed under Section of 5 of said Act of 1948 which is required to be adopted for revising the rates of minimum wages will have to be followed. Therefore, the action of the withdrawing the notifications could not have been taken only on the basis of the report of the Labour Commissioner, but the State Government was required to follow the procedure prescribed by Section-5 which is applicable for fixing the rates of minimum wages either for the first time or for revising the same. Therefore, even assuming that the State Government could have invoked Section 21 of the said Act of 1897, the State Government was required to follow the procedure under Section 5 of the said Act of 1948 by taking recourse either to clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section-5 before rescinding the final notifications. In the case in hand, that was admittedly not done.

59. Even assuming that the power under Section-21 of the said Act of 1897 could be exercised for rescinding the final notifications issued for fixing the rates of minimum wages, in the facts of the case, the three notifications dated 30th December, 2017 which came into force on 30th December, 2017 vested a right in the employees of the concerned industries in respect of which notifications were issued, entitling them to get the minimum wages at the rates fixed by the said three notifications. Hence, the vested right created in the employees to get the wages as per the rates fixed under the three final notifications could not be taken away without revising the rates as provided under section 3 read with section 5 the said Act of 1948. The vested right could not have been taken away by taking recourse to Section 21 of the said Act of 1897. Therefore, as held by the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of L and T Komatsu (supra), the three notifications could not be rescinded by exercising the power under Section- 21 of the said Act of 1897, as the right vested in employees cannot be taken away by exercise of such power. Hence, the action of withdrawal of the said three notifications is ultra virus the provisions of the said Act of 1948 as well as the said Act of 1897 and is liable to be set aside.

60. However, the situation in case of the fourth withdrawn notification being a draft notification dated 22nd February, 2018 in respect of Tailoring industry is different. The said notification did not fix the rates of minimum wages but, by the said notification, only the proposals of the State Government of fixing the rates of minimum wages were published in accordance with clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section-5. Thus, it was a draft notification published proposing to revise the rates of minimum wages in case of Tailoring Industry and the proposed rates were mentioned therein. While fixing the rates of minimum wages after consulting the Advisory Board, the State Government had a power to enhance or reduce the rates mentioned in the draft notification. The notification dated 22nd February 2018 contained only a proposal to revise the rates of minimum wages fixed earlier and therefore, while issuing final notification, the State Government had a power to reduce the rates of minimum wages mentioned in the draft notification. As the reason for withdrawal of the said notification was that the proposed rates of minimum wages mentioned therein were on the higher side, the said rates could have been reduced while issuing the final notification. Therefore, the statute itself confers a power on the Appropriate Government to do something which could have been done in exercise of the powers under section-21 of the said Act of 1897. Hence, recourse to the power under Section-21 could not have been taken for withdrawing the draft notification. Therefore, withdrawal of the draft notification also cannot be sustained as even this action is ultra virus the provisions of the said Act of 1948 as well as under the said Act of 1897.

61. On 23rd August 2019, submissions in this group of appeals were heard and therefore, further action taken by the State government on the basis of the withdrawal of the notifications by the order dated 22nd March 2018 was always subject to final outcome of this appeal. The State Government, during the pendency of the appeal, in pursuance of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge under the impugned Judgment and order, had published a fresh notification dated 31st October, 2019 after taking recourse to clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section-3 read with clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section-5, for fixing the rates of minimum wages in respect of the Spinning Mills. Another final notification was published on the same day for fixing the rates of minimum wages in respect of Garments, Costumes and Tailoring industry. The third final notification was also issued on the same date, fixing the rates of minimum wages in respect of Cloth Dyeing and Printing industry. The fourth notification was published fixing the rates of minimum wages in respect of Textiles (silk) industry. The final notifications in relation to Textiles (silk) industry, Spinning Mills Industry, Cloth Dyeing and Printing were made effective from 30th December, 2017 i.e., the date on which the earlier three final notifications were withdrawn were brought into force. The notification in respect of Tailoring industry was also brought into force with effect from 30th December, 2017. As we have already held that those three final notifications dated 30th December, 2017 were illegally withdrawn, the corresponding three final notifications issued during the pendency of these appeals on 31st October 2019 in respect of the same industries will be of no legal effect. We have held that the draft notification in respect of Tailoring industry was illegally withdrawn. Hence, the final notification dated 31st October 2019 in respect of the said Tailoring industry will have no effect at all. As the three final notifications dated 30th December 2017 will stand revived, the corresponding new notifications dated 31st October, 2019 will be rendered inoperative, inasmuch as, there cannot be two sets of notifications in respect of the same industries fixing the different rates from 30th December, 2017. As the preliminary notification of 22nd February 2018 in case of Tailoring industry will stand revived, the final notification dated 31st October, 2019 will be rendered inoperative. Hence, the State Government will have to take further steps on the basis of the revived draft notification in accordance with Sub-Section (2) of Section 5. In case of revived notifications dated 30th December, 2017, the State Government can always take action of revision of the rates fixed therein in accordance with the law. The said action can be taken on its own or on the application made by the employers. To the above extent, the Writ Appeal No.1520/2019 will have to be allowed in part.

CONSIDERATIONS OF SUBMISSIONS IN THE APPEALS BY EMPLOYERS

APPROACH OF THE COURT WHILE DEALING WITH SUBMISSIONS AND THE ISSUE OF NATURE OF POWER EXERCISED BY THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT

62. By the impugned notifications challenged by the employers, the rates of minimum wages were approximately enhanced by Rs.8000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month after the lapse of 4 to 5 years. Only in case of Doctors, the enhancement was more as it was fixed at Rs.40,908.40/- per month with effect from 30th December 2017 which cannot be per se excessive. The concept of minimum wages is not a static concept. 72 years back when the said Act of 1948 was enacted, the said concept was different. Thereafter, it has gradually changed. The world has changed very fast during the last decade. The concept of necessities of life has undergone a drastic change. The concept of what is required for subsistence has also changed. The rate of minimum wages must be such that it ensures health and decency which concepts have also undergone a change. In the case of workmen vs. Retakes Brett and Co (supra), in paragraph 25, it was observed as under:

"25. in any case we are of the opinion that purchasing power of today's wage cannot be judged by making calculations which are solely based on 30/40 years old wage structure. The only reasonable way to determine the category of wage structure is to evaluate each component of the category concerned in the light of the prevailing prices. There has been sky-rocketing rise in the prices and the inflation chart is going up so fast that the only way to do justice to the labor is to determine the money value of various components of the minimum wage in the context of today."

(Underline supplied)

The aforesaid principles will have to be kept in mind, when we decide the challenge by the employers. If we peruse the submissions made by the employers, it can be said that most of the submissions are made on the footing that this Court is going to act as the Appellate Authority. We will have to examine the challenge by employers, by keeping in mind the changing world and the well settled constraints on the exercise of writ jurisdiction in the matters involving fixation of minimum wages. Looking to the scheme of the said Act of 1948, it appears that the Legislature has left the act of determination of the rates of minimum wages to the Appropriate Government. If we look at Section 5, the exercise of the power by the Appropriate Government of fixing the rates of minimum wages is neither quasi-judicial nor administrative. The Legislature has delegated its power to the Appropriate Government to fix the rates of minimum wages. Hence, fixation of minimum wages is a legislative function. In the case of Mangalore Ganesh Beedi (supra), it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that the minimum wage fixation is a legislative act. Hence, it follows that the requirement of giving reasons and giving hearing are ruled out.

THE CONTENTION THAT NOT ADOPTING OPTION UNDER CLAUSE (a) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 5 WAS DISCRIMINATORY:

63. Now we go to the arguments canvassed in the appeals preferred by the employers. There was one argument canvassed especially in Writ Appeal No.1681-1682/2019 that out of two options available to the State Government under clause (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section-5 of the said Act of 1948, the option under clause (a) ought to have been adopted. The other argument is that in case of four industries in respect of which the notifications issued earlier were withdrawn, the State Government has taken recourse to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section-5 of the said Act of 1948 by appointing Tripartite Committees to hold enquiry and advise the Government in respect of fixation or revision of rates of minimum wages. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.1681/2019 was that the action of adopting option of clause (a) of Sub-section (1) Section-5 in case of selected four (04) industries and the action of the Government of adopting the option under clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section-5 in respect of other industries is a hostile discrimination which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that in case of four notifications which were withdrawn, the State Government has now fixed very reasonable rates of minimum wages after considering the advice of the Tripartite Committees.

64. We have already recorded our conclusions on the issue of the Appropriate Government's power to take recourse to either of the two options contemplated under sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section-5. The procedure for fixing the rates of minimum wages for the first time or for revising the same has been laid down therein. The word 'either' is used in sub-section (1) of Section-5. Therefore, there are two options available to the appropriate Government under the statute. One is under clause (a) and another is under clause (b). Where recourse is taken under clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section-5 for fixing or revising the rates of minimum wages, the State Government has to consider the advice of the Committee or Committees constituted under clause (a). Where an option under clause (b) is exercised, a notification containing the proposed rates of minimum wages is required to be published. As narrated earlier, by publishing a notification in the official gazette, the proposed rates are required to be notified and the date of its effect is required to be specified in the notification inviting representations in respect of such proposed rates. After considering the representations so received and after consulting the Advisory Board constituted under Section-7, the State Government is required to take a decision of fixing the rates of minimum wages. Ultimately, the power is vested with the Government to fix the rates of minimum wages. By appointing/constituting the Committees under clause (a) or by following the procedure under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section-5, all that the Government gets is the factual details or data as well as the views of all the stake holders. It is necessary to look at the composition of the Committee and the composition of the Advisory Board as provided in section 9. Perusal of Section 9 shows that, both in the Committee and in the Advisory Board, there is a representation given to both the employers and employees and there are independent persons as well. It can be said that both the Committee and the Advisory Board only render advice to the State Government. They collect the data for the Appropriate Government. In case of Advisory Board, the practice followed is that even the representations made on the basis of the draft notifications under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section-5 are placed before it. When the statute itself provides for two options, merely because the State exercises one option in case of one category of industry and the other option in case of other categories of industries, the action taken by the Government cannot be held to be discriminatory. Different yardsticks will have to be applied to different industries. It will not amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

65. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Chandra Bhavan (supra) wherein there was a specific challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section-5 of the said Act of 1948 on the ground that it was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it confers unguided and uncontrolled discretion on the Appropriate Government to follow either of the alternative procedures prescribed in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section-5 of the said Act of 1948. The challenge was rejected by the Apex Court for the reasons recorded in paragraph-9 of the judgment, which we have already quoted. As observed in the said Judgment, when two modes are provided in the statute under clauses (a) and (b) for collecting the necessary data, the Appropriate Government is empowered to opt for either of options. In either case, it is merely a procedure for gathering the necessary information/data which will be useful for the State Government in fixing the rates of minimum wages. Therefore, as observed by the Apex Court, which procedure should be adopted in case of a particular employment depends upon the nature of the employment and the information the Government has in its possession about such employment. Thus, giving choice of the two alternatives to the Government under clause (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section-5 of the said Act of 1948 is not at all arbitrary, as held by the Apex Court.

66. The contention of the learned counsel is that in case of few industries, the Government has opted for the option under clause (a) and has opted for the option under clause (b) in respect of other industries which is discriminatory. As held by the Apex Court, when the statute itself confers a choice of such options on the State Government as provided in clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section-5 of the said Act of 1948, opting for either of the options by the Government cannot be termed as violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the employers cannot find fault with the action of the Government in adopting the option under clause (a) in respect of four industries and taking recourse to clause (b) in respect of other industries. Therefore, the argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the employer, based on the discrimination, cannot be accepted.

ARGUMENTS ON THE ILLEGALITY IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ADVISORY BOARD AND THE ILLIGALITY IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD

67. Another argument canvassed is in respect of improper constitution of composition of the Advisory Board. The argument, in substance is that the representatives of the employer and employees were not equal in number. The argument is that it was not clear whether one particular member is a representative of the employers or employees or that whether he is an independent member. In the case of Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation (supra), the Apex Court held that the Committee constituted under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section-5 of the said Act of 1948 acts only as a recommendatory body and final decision of fixing the rates of minimum wages has to be made by the Government with reference to the facts of the case. The Apex Court held that the exercise of fixing the rates of minimum wages should not be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article- 226 of the Constitution of India solely on the basis of the irregularities in constitution of the Committees or on the ground of mere technicalities, as the case may be. The same view is taken by the Apex Court in the case of Edward Mills (supra). The same law must apply to the Advisory Board. We must note here that assuming that there was no equal representation to the employers and employees on the Board, it will be a mere technicality. Moreover, while we deal with the argument of the employers, we must note that the representatives of the Federation of Karnataka Chamber of Commerce and Industry ('FKCCI'), Karnataka Small Scale Industries Association ('KSSIA') and Karnataka Employers' Association (KEA) were, admittedly, a part of the Minimum Wages Advisory Board. The averments made in the writ petitions filed by the FKCCI show that it had membership of large number of employers of different categories. The same is the case with KSSIA and KEA. Thus, the employers had a strong representation in the form of the representatives of their Associations.

68. Another argument was that one person by name Mr. Raja Mohammad who was earlier nominated to be a representative of employees was re-designated as a representative of capital/employers. The material on record shows that in the enquiry, it was found that he was a registered class-I contractor. Hence, he cannot be a representative of the employees or an independent person. Another argument canvassed was that the Chairman of the Board was a class-I contractor. We must note here that as observed by the learned Single Judge, in this case, constitution of the Board was put on the public domain and no one raised any objection to the constitution of the Advisory Board. Moreover, the three Associations of the employers referred above along with other representatives of the employers participated in the proceedings of the Board without raising any objection to the constitution of the Board. Moreover, assuming that there were some illegalities in the composition and constitution of the Advisory Board, it is not shown that it has resulted into a formation of an opinion which is against the employers. The appellants have not demonstrated any prejudice caused to them due to such technical error or improper composition of the Advisory Board. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the entire proceedings of the Advisory Board were vitiated due to improper constitution or composition of the Advisory Board. Moreover, on that ground alone, interference with the decision of the State Government in fixing the rates of minimum wages cannot be made in exercise of jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, especially when three major bodies of the employers representing the large number of classes of employers were a part of the Advisory Board. Therefore, this argument of the employers deserves to be rejected.

69. Now we deal with the submissions about the manner in which the meetings of the Advisory Board were conducted. As pointed out by the State Government, in case of thirty seven draft notifications, 521 objections/representations from various affected parties were received by the Labour Department. The Advisory Board conducted meetings on different dates and discussed about the draft notifications and objections regarding the rates proposed regarding various categories of employments. The tabular statement giving the details reads thus:

Sl No Scheduled Employment Date of Meeting 1 Public Motor Transport 13.05.2016 2 Manufacture of Ayurveda and Allopathy Medicine 25.04.2016 3 Food Processing 13.05.2015 4 Foundry 17.04.2015 - 314 - 5 Automobile Engineering 17.04.2015 6 Printing Press 17.04.2015 7 Hospital and Nursing Homes 13.05.2016 15.12.2016 8 Hostels 17.04.2015 9 Laundry 13.05.2016 10 Electronics 25.04.2016 11 Steel Almirahas, tables, chairs, and other steel furniture industry 25.04.2016 12 Plastic, Polly Plastic, rubber and PVC pipes manufacturing industry 25.04.2016 13 Film Industry 13.05.2016 14 Tobacco Industry Tobacco Processing 06.12.2017 15 Wood work including Carpentry industry and saw mill Industry 06.12.2017 16 Employment not covered under any Scheduled Employments 06.12.2017 17 Petrol and diesel oil pumps Industry 06.12.2017 18 Brass copper and Aluminum utensils manufacturing Industry 06.12.2017 19 Spinning Mills 06.12.2017 20 Rubber, products (including foam and coir rubberized products) Industry 06.12.2017 21 Plantation Labour: Cinchona rubber tea or coffee plantations (Non-staff) 06.12.2017 22 Shops and commercial establishments 06.12.2017 23 Wood work including Plywood Industry 06.12.2017 24 Engineering Industry 06.12.2017 25 Pulp papers, paper, card board, straw board including news print 06.12.2017 26 Objections pertaining to all the 37 Scheduled Employments 06.12.2017

70. For the sake of illustration, we are referring to minutes of some of the meetings of the Advisory Board. Firstly, we are referring to the meeting dated 17th April 2015. There is a discussion about calculation of rates of minimum wages and the discussion relating to how many units should be consumed, how many calories were required for an employee for his daily livelihood, how much cloth is required for the family of one employee. It discusses the house rent payable as fixed by the Government under the Government Housing Project. It discusses about the fuel, electricity and other miscellaneous expenses and records that under the calculation of minimum wage, 25% should be allocated towards children's education, medical, social security and marriage. The rates for food and cloth were arrived at after calculating the price fixed by the the State run Janatha Bazar at various centers in the State. Then, the calculations were made of the actual amount required for food grains, clothes, house rent and other miscellaneous expenses etc. The minutes record the figures in respect of Zone-1, 2 and 3. Paragraph-3 of the minutes of the meeting shows that the discussion was about the draft notifications in respect of the revision of rates of minimum wages relating to the following industries:

i) Automobile Engineering Industry

ii) Foundry Industry

iii) Veneer Industry

iv) Hostel Industry

v) Printing Press

vi) Oil Mills

vii) Ceramic Industry

viii) Ice factory industry.

The discussion which took place has been reproduced in the minutes and a detailed tabular statement has been incorporated of the proposed rates of minimum wages of various categories of employees. It is noted specifically in the minutes that there was a consensus amongst all the members present in the meeting. There was discussion on other topics such as suggestions for certain amendments to the said Act of 1948.

71. In the meeting held on 2nd January, 2016 again there was a detailed discussion about the draft notifications issued in respect of the security agencies. There is a reference to the objections raised to the draft notification. The proposal for rates of minimum wages has been incorporated in the minutes in which it has been recorded that out of the eleven members present in the meeting, seven members have agreed for the proposals made by the Chairman.

72. In the meeting held on 25th April 2016, there was a discussion on various categories of industries such as electronic and electroplating industries, plastic, poly plastic, rubber, PVC pipe manufacturing and some other industries. Here again, the minutes show that there was an in-depth discussion and thereafter, the recommendations were made on the rates of minimum wages for different categories of employees. The decision taken includes the decision in respect of the employees of steel almiraha, tables, chairs and steel furniture industry and there is a reference to the several suggestions received which are reproduced in the minutes.

73. We have carefully perused the minutes of the meeting held on 13th May, 2016 wherein there was a discussion regarding the draft notification issued by the State Government in relation to sixteen industries. It refers to the suggestions made in respect of the draft notifications dated 14th January 2016 pertaining to various industries. The minutes deals with the draft notifications regarding various employers viz., Hospital and Nursing Home, Hotels, Construction, Cinema, Club, Distilleries, food processing as well as packing food items including packing of coffee and sambar items, glass and glassware, laundry, electronic and electro plating, timber depot, aerated water, public motor transport etc. The names of the participants, the gist of their suggestions and objections received from various parties are also incorporated in the minutes. The minutes, in detail, record the reactions and statements of various persons who were present. It records that out of sixteen members, fifteen members were present and after discussion, ten members have raised their hands favouring the draft notifications dated 14th January 2016 for revision of minimum wages for sixteen notified industries and for raise in the dearness allowance from four paise to five paise in case of all 16 draft notifications. The names of the representatives who voted accordingly have also been incorporated and the proposed rates of revised minimum wages in respect of various categories of employees of said sixteen industries have been set out. The minutes indicate that that the voting had indeed taken place. The minutes further provide that calculation of dearness allowance will be made once in a year on the basis of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The minutes record that the average CPI will be taken into consideration to determine the revision in the payment of dearness allowance. It is stated that the calculation on the basis of the CPI from January to December 2015 will be effective from first day of April, 2016.

74. On 15th December 2016, another meeting of the Advisory Board was held in which, four independent members, five representatives of the employees and six representatives of the employers participated. There was a debate in the meeting on the issue of fixing the rates of minimum wages in respect of the industries such as Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes, Road construction and management and maintenance of buildings. It is noted in the minutes that the representatives of the employees who were present in the meeting, with one voice, welcomed the action of fixing minimum wages of Rs.40,000/- to the Doctors, on par with the wages paid by the Employees' State Insurance Scheme (ESI). It is specifically recorded that more number of members present in the meeting have expressed their opinion that minimum wages for Doctors and other personnel of private hospital and nursing home should be on par with the wages paid to the Doctors and other staff in ESI and the representatives of the owners who were present expressed their opposition. Though in the minutes it is recorded that as there was no consensus, the Board recommended to the Government to take suitable decision and issue final notification, the majority view is reflected from the minutes.

75. Similarly, after detailed discussion, the majority of the members expressed their opinion to fix the minimum wages of the Engineers working in the Roads Construction or Management and Maintenance of Buildings on the lines of the pay-scales of the Engineers of the Public Works Department. The representatives of the owners opposed the same.

In this meeting, there was also a discussion as regards the decision taken in the earlier meeting of taking the average consumer price index as 5780 points effective from first April 2016. Even on the said decision, there was a discussion in the meeting dated 15th December, 2016. It is noted that the representatives of the employers have stated that CPI has been merged with 5780 points but in reality, it must be merged with 6205 points. As can be seen from the minutes, the majority was with the representatives of the employees. There was a decision taken regarding formation of the Committees and sub-Committees which has been disapproved by the learned Single Judge.

76. On 6th December 2017, there was a meeting of the Advisory Board attended by thirty three members. The representatives of KCCI, KSCI, Karnataka Employer's Association and representatives of some other organizations of Industries were present. The minutes of the meeting record that the objections and suggestions were received in respect of the scheduled 37 industries. It is noted that copies of draft notifications and suggestions and objections received by the Government to the draft notifications were already served to the members of the Board. The list of draft notifications has been incorporated in the minutes. views expressed by each and every member who actively participated in the meeting have also been recorded. The issue of retrospectively revising the minimum wages was also discussed. There was a discussion based on the provisions of the Guardians and Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and in the context it was suggested that the family should be in the domain of more than three units. The English translation of ultimate resolution passed by the Board records that the draft notifications fixing the rates of minimum wages for thirty seven (37) industries were discussed in the meeting from all angles and in the background of expert's opinion and suggestions, it was unanimously decided that the Karnataka State Government will take suitable and fair decision.

77. An argument was canvassed that there were no recommendations made in the meeting held on 6th December 2017. A perusal of the minutes will show that the views expressed by each and every member who participated in the deliberations in the meeting have been recorded and a recommendation was made to the State Government to take a decision after considering the views expressed in the meeting. Thus, the views of the members who attended the meeting of 6th December 2017 were before the Government. Apart from that, the Advisory Board was not expected to record reasons and pass an order containing its recommendations like quasi judicial or judicial authority. The views expressed by the members of the Advisory Board and other factual details recorded in the proceedings were before the State Government. It is true that Rules 16 and 17 of the Karnataka Minimum Wages Rules, 1958 provide that the decisions of the Advisory Board shall be taken by majority of the votes of the members present and voting and that the voting shall be ordinarily by show of hands unless the Chairman decides to have it by a secret ballot. Both Rules 16 and 17 are procedural Rules. The non-compliance with the same will not vitiate the process especially when there was an elaborate consideration of the issues in the meetings of the Advisory Board and the views expressed were recorded in the minutes. The fact that the last meeting continued for only three hours is not a relevant consideration. There were elaborate deliberations in the earlier meetings as well. The object of setting up Advisory Board is to collect the data to enable the State Government to fix the rates of minimum wages. The elaborate discussions on the proposed rates were recorded in the minutes. Hence, it cannot be said that the action of the Government of fixing rates of minimum wages is vitiated because there was no specific recommendation made by the Advisory Board. Consultation does not mean meeting between the members of the Advisory Board and Government officials. The material in the proceedings of various meetings of the Board was placed before the decision making authority of the State.

Assuming that there was any flaw in the consultation contemplated by Section 5 or in the procedure adopted by the Advisory Board, we will be guided by what is held by this Court in the case of Mangalore Ganesh Beedi(supra). This Court held that

"26. A notification fixing minimum wages, in a country like ours where wages are already minimal should not be interfered with under Article 226 except on the most substantial of grounds. The Act is a social welfare legislation undertaken to further the directive principles of State policy and action taken pursuant to it cannot be struck down on mere technicalities such as some irregularities in constitution of, or in procedure followed by the committee appointed under Sections 5(1)(a) and 9. In Sree Kalyanarama Company Mine v. Government of India,1980 56 FJR 79 (AP)(DB). , the minimum wages notification was impugned, inter alia, on the ground that the increase in the minimum wages fixed by that notification as compared to the earlier one was disproportionate and highly unreasonable. Rejecting that plea, a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court observed:

"..... It is not competent for this Court to go into and say as to what is the minimum wages vis-a-vis a particular industry or for that matter, vis-a-vis a particular category of employees. It is well-settled that it is perfectly competent for the concerned authorities to fix the minimum wage if it is in compliance with statutory requirements".

27. The fixation of minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled employment by the appropriate Government is an administrative act which is final and not subject to judicial review on the question of the quantum of wages fixed on humanitarian ground. The notification fixing the minimum wages can be interfered by the Court only where the fixation of minimum wages by the appropriate Government is ultra vires the."

(underline supplied)

Hence, following the aforesaid principles, it is not possible to interfere on the ground of procedural illegalities in the functioning of the Advisory Board or its constitution.

78. The note sheets produced by the State Government along with the memo dated 20th August 2019 show that on the basis of the minutes of the meetings of the Advisory Board, the Deputy Secretary to the State Government in Labour Department prepared a note on 16th December 2017. The Secretary has signed it on the same day. Thereafter, there is a noting by the Deputy Secretary made on 20th December 2017 that there was a discussion with the Secretary. Thereafter, there is a note by the Deputy Secretary stating that records in respect of all the notifications be placed before the Hon'ble Minister for approval. There is a note dated 23rd December 2017 which records that after discussion with the Secretary, Labour Department, steps have been taken to submit all the notifications for the approval of the Hon'ble Minister. It further records that separate 37 files were maintained in respect of 37 employments. It also records that a separate proposed notification in respect of Cotton Ginning and pressing industry is prepared after a report was submitted by the Labour Commissioner. Thus, in all 37 files were before the Hon'ble Minister on 23rd December 2017. After considering the material, Hon'ble Minister approved the same.

The minutes of the proceedings of the Advisory Board along with the proposals for fixation of final rates of minimum wages were placed before the State Government and from the note sheet it appears that there were due deliberations at the level of Secretary of the State Government and necessary verification was made. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Minister approved the proposals on 23rd December 2016.

79. The State Government had the benefit of the views expressed by the members of the Advisory Board which were recorded in the minutes of meetings and the minutes were placed before the State Government. The noting made in the note sheets clearly indicates that at various levels, the issue was considered and ultimately, the Hon'ble Minister of the concerned department granted approval and thereafter, the impugned final notifications were issued.

80. The recommendations or the opinion of the Advisory Board, as can be seen from the Scheme of the said Act of 1948, always remain in the realm of opinion or advice and there is no statutory obligation on the part of the Appropriate Government to act upon the recommendations made by the Board, for fixing or revising the rates of minimum wages. All that the proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section-5 of the said Act of 1948 requires is that the State Government must consult the Advisory Board. The ultimate decision is with the State Government. Even prior to 6th December 2017, there were effective discussions in the meetings of the Advisory Board which we have discussed earlier. In the facts and circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to accept the argument canvassed that there was no effective consultation with the Advisory Board.

ISSUE OF CONSUMER PRICE INDEX:

81. There are arguments canvassed regarding the figure of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) which should be considered and that the action of the Government in merging CPI with 5780 points is erroneous. We must note here that as per the dictum of the Apex Court, when the rates of the minimum wages are fixed by the Appropriate Government, a writ Court cannot sit over in appeal, make a detailed factual scrutiny and examine the merits of the recommendations as well as the merits of the wage structure finally notified by the Government. This Court does not have expertise to decide in what manner CPI should be computed for the fixation of the minimum wages and what should be the quantum of the minimum wages. But it is for the persons having expertise in the matter to take a call on that. A writ Court cannot act like an expert in the field and adjudicate on the said issues which should be normally left to the decision making authority which has the benefit of the opinion expressed by the members of the Advisory Board.

COST OF HOUSING

82. As regards the cost of housing (rent), the same has been taken as per the relevant housing scheme for the poor prevailing at that particular point of time. The rent is taken at the rate of Rs.4000/-, Rs.2750/- and Rs.2500/- per month in respect of Zone-1, 2 and 3 respectively. It is not in dispute that the Industrial Housing Scheme which was prevalent earlier is no longer in existence. The Apex Court in its decision has referred to the housing scheme which was in existence at that time. As pointed out by the State Government in its statement of objections, the said scheme is no longer in existence and therefore, scheme of Affordable Housing for the Urban Poor introduced by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation has been rightly adopted, which prescribes an area of house of 300-400 square feet. Thus, the State Government has considered the concept of housing as per the existing scheme of Affordable Housing for the Urban Poor introduced by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation and has fixed the rates of rent. In any case, as of December 2017, the aforesaid rates of rent cannot be termed as unreasonable. Ultimately, what this Court is required to see is whether the rate of rent fixed by the Government is unreasonable and arbitrary. If we look at the rates fixed as quoted above, by no stretch of imagination, the rates can be termed as unreasonable which will amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

DIRECTION IN CLAUSE(3) OF THE NOTIFICATION REGARDING DEARNESS ALLOWANCE

83. Now we deal with the argument regarding direction to pay the dearness allowance in clause (3) of the impugned Notification. The dearness allowance has always a nexus with the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The argument is that the reasons given by the learned Single Judge for setting aside one percent (1%) addition by way of service seniority allowance of the minimum wages are applicable even to the component of dearness allowance. The said argument is erroneous. The learned Single Judge has dealt with this argument stating that such allowances (1%) are paid for preserving the efficiency of an employee. The learned Single Judge took a view that including such an incentive in the concept of minimum wages is erroneous. He held that the appropriate Government was not competent to include 1% in the minimum wages. However, as far as the dearness allowance is concerned, it stands on a different footing, inasmuch as, it has direct nexus with the Consumer Price Index. The ultimate object of fixing or revising the minimum wages is that the employees must survive and therefore, the dearness allowance cannot be equated with the one percent (1%) incentives.

84. In the impugned final notifications, there is a direction in Clause (3) that in the event the rate of wage paid now is higher, the payment at the said rate shall be continued and increase in dearness allowance from time to time also shall be remitted. The first part of the said direction has been already set aside by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order. The second part of clause (3) is a direction which is applicable only to the payment of higher wages in terms of the first part of clause (3). As the first part is set aside, the second part must go. To that extent, the appeals by the employers will have to be allowed.

However, the direction regarding payment of 4 paise per day for every point increase in the State average CPI over 5780 points cannot be disturbed. Perusal of the impugned notifications show that dearness allowance payable as per CPI prevailing is already taken into consideration while fixing the rates of minimum wages as it is mentioned that the rates published by the notifications are merged to the State average CPI (1960-100) 5780 points. In fact a direction has been issued that for every one point increase in future in State average CPI over 5780 points, the workers of all categories shall be paid dearness allowance at the rate of 4 paise per day. The basic rate of minimum wages includes dearness allowance. As on the date of the impugned notification, a separate amount is not made payable on account of dearness allowance. It is specifically observed that rates published by the notification have been merged to the State average consumer price index (1960-100) 5780 points. Reliance is placed by the employers on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Airfreight Limited (supra). As it is clear from the facts of the case before the Apex Court, in the final notification fixing rates of minimum wages, additional component of dearness allowance was added. The Apex Court observed thus:

"But while deciding the question of payment of minimum wages, the Competent Authority is not required to bifurcate each component of the costs of each item taken into consideration for fixing minimum wages, as lump sum amount is determined for providing adequate remuneration to the workman so that he can sustain and maintain himself and his family and also preserve his efficiency as a worker. Dearness allowance is part and parcel of cost of necessities. In cases where the minimum rates of wages is linked up with VDA, it would not mean that it is a separate component which is required to be paid separately where the employer pays a total pay package which is more than the prescribed minimum rate of wages."

(underline supplied)

The said decision will not help the employers as in the notified rates dearness allowance is already included and there is no separate component of the dearness allowance. The direction to pay 4 paise per day on every one point increase in State average CPI over 5780 points will apply if there is such increase in CPI after the date of notification. Hence, there is nothing wrong in the said direction and consequently, there is nothing wrong in the direction contained in paragraph (11) of the notifications.

INDUSTRIES NOT SPECIFICALLY COVERED UNDER ANY SPECIFIC ITEMS OF THE SCHEDULE

85. Some argument is made regarding the act of fixing rates in respect of some industries though the same are not covered by both the parts of the Schedule to the said Act. In the case of Airfreight Ltd (supra), in paragraph 14, the Apex Court observed thus:

"14. For considering this contention, we would first refer to the notifications issued by the State Government. By notification dated 27-1-1971/28-1-1971, the Karnataka State Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act directed that in Part I of the Schedule to the said Act, after Item 27, the following item shall be added, namely:

"28. Employment in shops and commercial establishments."

Thereafter, in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of Section 3 and sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act, the State Government has fixed the rates of minimum wages payable to the categories of employees who are employed in any kind of work throughout the State of Karnataka in any of the shops and commercial establishments as specified in the Schedule."

(underline supplied)

In the same decision, the Apex Court gave a very wide meaning to the term commercial establishment. In paragraph 6, the Apex Court held thus:

"6. In our view the contention that the appellant Company is not covered by the expression "shops and commercial establishments" has no merit. It is admitted by the appellant Company before the Competent Authority (Labour Officer) that the appellant Company is engaged in import and export clearance and forwarding of cargo, travel and tourism, import, consolidate and courier services and is having several offices situated at various places including New Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Ahmedabad, Bengaluru etc. It is also admitted that it is registered as a commercial establishment which is engaged in courier, cargo, travel and related services. In the petition filed before the High Court, it was submitted by the appellant that the main activity of cargo division is handling incoming and outgoing shipment by air concerning clearing and forwarding; the type of services rendered are processing of custom clearance and export formalities; booking of space of air shipment; consolidation of inward air cargo, international/domestic door to door express delivery of documents, parcels and packages; clearing and forwarding of goods entrusted to it for safe delivery by way of personal services and such other activities. For this purpose, the High Court has appreciated the evidence that was placed before the Labour Officer and we do not find any error that would call for interference. The High Court has also rightly referred to the common parlance meaning of the expression "shops and commercial establishment" on the ground that Item 28 is added in the Central Act where the said expression is not defined. In our view, the activities which are carried out by the appellant leave no doubt that they would be covered by the expression "shops" and/or "commercial establishment" as understood in the ordinary common parlance. What the appellant establishment is doing is purely a commercial activity with profit motive, hence, commercial establishment. It can also be termed as a shop where services are sold on a retail basis. For this purpose, it is not necessary to refer to various decisions of this Court in detail which deal with the meaning of the expression "shops and/or commercial establishment". In Hindu Jea Band v. Regional Director, ESI Corpn., (1987) 2 SCC 101 [LQ/SC/1987/219] : 1987 SCC (L&S) 88 a shop was held to be "a place where services are sold on retail basis" and, therefore, making available on payment of a stipulated price the services of musicians employed by the petitioner on wages made the petitioner's establishment a "shop". In International Ore and Fertilizers (India) (P) Ltd. v. ESI Corpn., (1987) 4 SCC 203 [LQ/SC/1987/593] : 1987 SCC (L&S) 391 the petitioner carried on activities facilitating the sale of goods by its foreign principals to the State Trading Corporation or the Minerals and Metals Corporation; it arranged for the unloading of such goods and their survey; upon delivery it collected the price payable and remitted to its foreign principals. These were considered to be trading activities, although the goods imported were not actually brought to the petitioner's premises but were delivered to the purchaser there and the premises was held to be a shop. In the case of Cochin Shipping Co. v. ESI Corpn., (1992) 4 SCC 245 [LQ/SC/1992/530] : 1992 SCC (L&S) 85 wherein the Company was engaged in the business of clearing and forwarding at the Port of Cochin situated in Willingdon Island the question was whether the establishment with the Company is a "shop" within the meaning of the expression as used in the notification under the ESI Act. The Court held that the Company was rendering service to cater to the needs of exporters and importers and others who want to carry the goods further. Therefore, it is a shop carrying on systematic, economic or commercial activity. Further, in the case of ESI Corpn. v. R.K. Swamy, (1994) 1 SCC 445 [LQ/SC/1993/939] : 1994 SCC (L&S) 586 the Court held that "the word 'shop' has acquired an expanded meaning and means a place where services are sold on retail basis". The Court further observed that the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 was a beneficial legislation and, therefore, it was reasonably possible so to construe the word "shop" as to include the activity of an advertising agency within it."

(underlines supplied)

None of the appellants who are falling in the category of commercial establishments have come out with the case that they are not carrying on commercial activities with the intention to make profit. Hence, there is no merit in this grievance.

ARGUMENT OF DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYMENTS AND THE ARGUMENT THAT THE RATES FIXED ARE HIGHER THAN THE RATES FIXED IN OTHER STATES

86. In some of the appeals, a grievance has been made that different yardsticks have been applied while dealing with different employments. There is a common argument that rates of minimum wages fixed in the State are higher than the rates fixed in other States. In the case of Bhikusa Yamas Khatriya (supra), the Apex Court in paragraph 4 and 5 has held thus:

4. The plea that fixation of minimum rates by notification under Section 3 violates the fundamental freedom under Article 19(1)(f) is in view of the decisions of this Court not open to be canvassed by the appellants. But it is urged that in enacting Section 3(3)(iv) which conferred upon the State authority to fix varying minimum rates of wages for different localities, the legislature gave no indication of the matters to be taken into account for that purpose, and entrusted the State with arbitrary and uncontrolled power, exercise whereof was likely to result in discriminatory treatment between different employers carrying on the same business in contiguous localities. The Act undoubtedly confers authority upon the appropriate Government to issue notifications fixing and revising rates of minimum wages in respect of diverse industries for the whole or part of the State. Having regard to the diversity of conditions prevailing and the number of industries covered by the the legislature could obviously not fix uniform minimum rates of wages for all scheduled industries, or for all localities in respect of individual industries. Working out of detailed provisions relating to the minimum rates, the advisability of fixing rates for different industries, ascertainment of localities in which they were to be applied, and the time when they were to be effective, and fixation of time rate, piece rate, or guaranteed time rate had from the very nature of the legislation to be delegated to some authority. In considering the minimum rates of wages for a locality diverse factors such as, basic rates of wage, special allowance, economic climate of the locality, necessity to prevent exploitation having regard to the absence of organisation amongst the workers, general economic condition of the industrial development in the area, adequacy of wages paid, and earnings in other comparable employments and similar other matters would have to be taken into account. Manifestly the legislature could not ascertain whether it was expedient to fix minimum wages in respect of each scheduled industry for the entire territory or for a part thereof and whether uniform or varying rates should be fixed having regard to the conditions prevailing in different localities. Again of necessity, different rates had to be fixed in respect of the work performed by adults, adolescents, children and apprentices.

5. The object and policy of the legislature appear on the face of the. The object of the is to prevent exploitation of the workers, and for that purpose it aims at fixation of minimum wages which the employers must pay. The legislature undoubtedly intended to apply the to those industries or localities in which by reason of causes such as unorganised labour or absence of machinery for regulation of wages, the wages paid to workers were, in the light of the general level of wages, and subsistence level, inadequate. Conditions of labour vary in different industries and from locality to locality, and the expediency of fixing minimum wages, and the rates thereof depends largely upon diverse factors which in their very nature are variable and can properly be ascertained by the Government which is in charge of the administration of the State. It is to carry out effectively the purpose of this 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 any scheduled trade or industry, in any locality, and if it be deemed expedient to do so, the rates at which the wages should be fixed in respect of that industry in the locality. By entrusting authority to the appropriate Government to determine the minimum wages for any industry in any locality or generally, the legislature has not divested itself of its authority, nor has it conferred uncontrolled power upon the State Government. The power conferred is subordinate and accessory, for carrying out the purpose and the policy of the. By entrusting to the State Government power to fixing minimum wages for any particular locality or localities the legislature has not stripped itself of its essential legislative power but has entrusted what is an incidental function of making a distinction having regard to the special circumstances prevailing in different localities in the matter of fixation of rates of minimum wages. Power to fix minimum rates of wages does not by itself invest the appropriate Government with authority to make unlawful discrimination between employers in different industries. Selective application of a law according to the exigencies where it is sanctioned, ordinarily results in permissible classification. Article 14 forbids class legislation but does not prohibit reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. If the basis of classification is indicated expressly or by implication, by delegating the function of working out the details of a scheme, according to the objects of the statute and principles inherent therein, to a body which has the means to do so at its command, the legislation will not be exposed to the attack of unconstitutionality. In other words, even if the statute itself does not make a classification for the purpose of applying its provisions, and leaves it to a responsible body to select and classify persons, objects, transactions, localities or things for special treatment, and sets out the policy or principles for its guidance in the exercise of its authority in the matter of selection, the statute will not be struck down as infringing Article 14 of the Constitution. This principle is well recognized: see Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, (1952) SCR 435"

(underlines supplied)

Even in the case of Chandra Bhawan Boarding (supra), this issue has been dealt with. In paragraph 16, it is held thus:

"16. The contention that the Government has no power to fix different minimum wages for different industries or in different localties is no more available in view of the decision of this Court in Bhaikusa Yamasa Kahatriya v. Sangamner Akola Taluka Bidi Kamgar Union., (1963) Supp1 SCR 524 The fixation of minimum wages depend on the prevailing economic conditions, the cost of living in a place, the nature of the work to be performed and the conditions in which the work is performed. The contention that it was impermissible for the Government to divide the State into several zones is opposed to Section 3(3) as well as to the scheme of the."

(underlines supplied)

Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the contentions raised by the employers deserve to be rejected.

THE CONTENTION THAT ZONES HAVE BEEN FIXED ARBITRARILY

87. Another contention of the employers is that the three zones adopted by the State are arbitrary. The grievance is that inclusion of Tumakuru in Zone I along with Bengaluru is irrational. The proximity in terms of distance of Tumakuru from Bengaluru, its accessibility from Bengaluru, the all around development in the outskirts of Bengaluru, etc may be the relevant factors. Even the fact that the area of Tumakuru falls in Municipal Corporation constituted under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 is also one of the several relevant considerations. In the case of Chandra Bhavan Boarding, the Apex Court has considered a similar argument in paragraph 17 which reads thus:

"17. On the basis of the material before us we are unable to say that the various zones had not been made on any rational basis. The Government has given good reasons in support of the steps taken by it. Bengaluru is the capital of the State and Mangalore is a major port. Therefore they may stand on a different footing. In matter like the preparation of zones we have to trust the State Government unless it is shown that collateral considerations have influenced its decision. No such plea was taken. The argument based on cost of living index showing that cost of living index was higher in several other towns in the State than Bengaluru or Mangalore is not a well founded argument. The cost of living is one thing, cost of living index is another. What is relevant is the former and not the latter. The latter depends on the base year, which is not the same in all the towns and the prices of certain selected goods in each of the towns concerned in the base year and thereafter which again is likely to differ from town to town."

(underline supplied)

It is pointed out that in subsequent notifications, Tumakuru is placed in Zone 2. The considerations for placing a particular area in a particular zone keep on changing with the passage of time. The Government is the best judge to decide which area should be included in which zone. It is not for the writ Court to decide which area should fall in which zone. Therefore, we cannot find fault with inclusion of the town Tumakuru in zone 1.

OTHER SUBMISSIONS

88. There was an argument canvassed that the State Government has constituted a Committee to reconsider the recommendations made by Shanthappa Committee and without waiting for the recommendations of the said Committee, the rates of minimum wages have been fixed. We may note here that the rates of minimum wages have been fixed after considering several factors. One of the factors taken into consideration while fixing the rates may be recommendations of the Shanthappa Committee. Merely because a Committee has been constituted for reconsideration of recommendations of Shanthappa Committee, the process of determination of rates of minimum wages is not vitiated even assuming that the recommendations of Shanthappa committee have been considered.

89. Some criticism has been made that the minimum wage of doctors has been fixed at the rate of Rs.40,908.40/- per month. This rate is applicable from 30th December 2017. The deliberations in the Advisory Board to which a reference has already been made shows that the members were of the view that for determining the minimum wages of doctors, the wages fixed under the Employees' Insurance Scheme Establishments be taken into consideration. It is true that the minimum wages for doctors have been substantially increased. But, it cannot be said that as of 30th December 2017, the rate of minimum wages of doctors fixed as above is arbitrary or unreasonable or capricious.

90. Another criticism is made about the direction of the learned Single Judge to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the minimum wages fixed from 30th December 2017. The learned Single Judge has given the reasons for the said direction. The impugned minimum wages notifications were not implemented on account of interim relief granted in the petitions filed by the employers. After finding that there was no illegality in the rates of minimum wages fixed under the impugned notifications, for compensating the employees, this reasonable direction of payment of interest at the rate of 6% has been issued. The employees became entitled to wages at the revised rates from 30th December 2017. Hence, they are entitled to interest at the reasonable rate of 6% per annum.

91. In the case of Mangalore Ganesh Beedi (supra), this Court summarized the law on the limitations on interference with fixation of rates of minimum wages in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court held thus:

"31. Thus, it is well-settled that the notification fixing the minimum wages cannot lightly be interfered with by the High Court under Article 226 and that the High Court can interfere with such notification only where it finds the concerned appropriate Government has exceeded its jurisdiction and/or acted ultra vires the provisions of the."

(underline supplied)

To conclude, except the issue regarding withdrawal of the notifications where the action of the State Government is found to be ultra vires the said Act of 1948, we do not find any error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge as far as the challenge to the fixation of rates of minimum wages is concerned. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is within the four corners of the law as far as the rates are concerned. It cannot be said that while fixing the rates of minimum wages, the State Government has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it or the action is ultra vires the provisions of the said Act of 1948. However, it is always open for the State Government to revise the rates of minimum wages after following the procedure under the said Act of 1948. The State Government can do so on its own or on the representation made by the employers. Hence, we pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The impugned judgment and order insofar as it relates to W.A.No.1520/2019 is hereby set aside and W.P.No.18621/2018 is allowed. The impugned notification dated 22nd March 2018 is hereby set aside and three final notifications dated 30th December 2017 as well as the preliminary notification dated 22nd February 2018 which were the subject matter of the said order dated 22nd March 2018 stand revived. Hence, the notifications dated 31st October 2019 in relation to the employments covered by the four notifications subject matter of the order dated 22nd March 2018, are rendered inoperative;

(ii) The State Government shall take further steps on the basis of the draft notification dated 22nd February 2018 in accordance with Section 5 of the said Act of 1948 as expeditiously as possible;

(iii) This order will not prevent the aggrieved parties from challenging the three revived final notifications dated 30th December 2017 in accordance with law. Moreover, it will be always open for the State Government to undertake the revision of the rates of minimum wages fixed under the said three notifications dated 30th December 2017 in accordance with the provisions of the said Act 1948;

(iv) So far as writ appeals preferred by employers are concerned, the impugned judgment and order passed on the writ petitions filed by the employers stands confirmed with the modification that the entire Clause (3) of the impugned notifications shall stand set aside subject to the observations and clarification made in paragraph 84 . Only to that extent, the appeals preferred by the employers are partly allowed;

(v) Considering the present situation, to enable the aggrieved parties to approach the higher Court, this Judgment will not be implemented for twelve weeks from today;

(vi) No orders as to costs.