JUDGMENT

UNTWALIA, J.:—The hearing of this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan and another by special leave proceeded ex parte against the respondents. After examining all the pros and cons of the dispute involved in this appeal with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellants we have come to the conclusion that the appeal should be allowed.

2. From time to time the Government of Rajasthan fixed or revised the minimum rates of wages for employees in the Mica Mines throughout the State of Rajasthan under Section 5(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Central Act 11 of 1948 - hereinafter called the Act. The employment in the Mica Mines is a scheduled employment within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act. Eventually the minimum rates of wages were fixed by the Government by a notification dated the 31st July, 1965, the validity of which was challenged in the Rajasthan High Court by several employers in the Mica Mines in Civil Writ No. 406/1966 and 15 other writs Several proceedings initiated on the basis of the impugned notification were also challenged by the employers. A Bench of the Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ applications, quashed the impugned notification and the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof. This appeal arises out of civil writ No. 406/ 1966 in which the employer is respondent No. 1.

3. The notification dated 31-7-l965 was challenged on several grounds and we will be concerned with some of them in this appeal. The relevant facts are these. For the purpose of revising the minimum 278 wages fixed by the earlier notification dated the 24th April, 1959, the State Government in the first instance appointed a committee consisting of five members on the 17th May, 1962.The constitution of the committee was, however, revised by notification dated the 26th November, 1962. This committee consisted of five members, two representatives of the employers, two representatives of the employees and one Professor K. S. Mathur, Head of the Department of Economics ,Degree College, Ajmer. The last was taken as an independent member of the committee. It submitted its report to the Government. The matter was referred by the Government to the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the Act. It appears that a Sub-committee was appointed by the Advisory Board to go into the matter further and to consider the report of the Wage Committee appointed earlier by the Government on the 26th November, 1962. In the Sub-committee were taken some persons who were not members of the Advisory Board.The Sub-committee also submitted its report to the Advisory Board which consisted of 21 members, 8 employers representatives, 8 employees representatives and 5 Government officers appointed in the category of independent members. The proceedings of the Board dated the 7th May, 1965 showed that it considered the recommendations of the Wage Committee and the Subcommittee and then submitted its report containing its recommendation of the wage structure suggesting an alternative scale of minimum wages according as the linking of Dearness Allowance with the consumer-price-indices. The State Government accepted the wage structure recommended by the Board but with slight variation in the matter of the linking basis with Dearness Allowance and made it all inclusive rates of minimum wages per month.

4. The learned Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court who delivered the leading Judgment in the case, on a consideration of the various divergent decisions of the High Courts came to the conclusion that the condition of the Wage committee was not valid as the Professor of the Government College was not an independent member. Similarly the constitution of the Advisory Board was also bad as the five Government officers on the Board could not be said to be independent members. He was also of the view that the Board had exceeded its power in appointing a Sub-committee and committed an illegality in taking into consideration its report