SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh - Appellant
Versus
State of Goa & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2982 of 2022
Decided On : 10-05-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Mayank Pandey, Shivraj Gaonkar, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Abhay Anil Anturkar, Bhavya Pande, Dhruv Tank, Harshvardhan Suryavanshi, Vaibhav Kulkarni, M/S. Dr. R.R. Deshpande And Associates, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Determination of minimum rates of wages – Once there was no mistake, same could not have been corrected in exercise of powers under Section 10 of Act, 1948.

Headnote:

Minimum Wages Act, 1948 – Sections 3, 4 and 5 read with Section 10 – General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 21 – Determination of minimum rates of wages – Scope of correction – Once minimum wages were revised and determined which included basic rates of wages and special allowance as per Section 4(1)(i) of Act, 1948, thereafter it cannot be said that there was any clerical and/or arithmetical mistake in mentioning clause (i) – Minimum wages were revised and determined even after consultation with Minimum Wage Advisory Board as required under Section 5 of Act, 1948 – Conscious decision was taken by State Government after consultation with Minimum Wage Advisory Board and thereafter minimum wages were revised and determined in exercise of power under Section 4(1)(i) – As such, it cannot be said that there was any arithmetical and/or clerical mistake – Once there was no mistake, same could not have been corrected in exercise of powers under Section 10 of Act, 1948 – Assuming that State was having power to amend, vary or rescind notification in exercise of powers under Section 21 of General Clauses Act, in that case also, when earlier notification dated 23/24.05.2016 was issued after following due procedure as required under Sections 4 and 5 of Act, 1948, same procedure ought to have been followed even while varying and/or modifying the notification – Notification dated 23/24.05.2016 could not have been modified by such an Errata Notification which was issued in purported exercise of Section 10 of Act, 1948 – Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016 was wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to relevant provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which ought to have been set aside by High Court – Impugned judgment and order passed by High quashed and set aside and earlier notification dated 23/24.05.2016 revising and determining minimum wages, which included basic rates of wages plus special allowance hereby restored. (Paras 7, 7.3, 7.4, 9, 10 and 11)

Facts of the case:

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 01.08.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No. 710 of 2016 by which the High Court has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant herein in which appellant herein challenged the validity of the Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016 issued by the State of Goa modifying/correcting its earlier notification dated 23/24.05.2016 by which the State of Goa fixed rates of minimum wages in various sectors, appellant has preferred the present appeal.

Findings of Court:

High Court has erred in dismissing writ petition challenging the Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016 by accepting the case on behalf of the State that there was a clerical mistake, which is subsequently corrected by Errata Notification.

Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 01.08.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No. 710 of 2016 by which the High Court has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant herein in which the appellant herein challenged the validity of the Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016 issued by the State of Goa modifying/correcting its earlier notification dated 23/24.05.2016 by which the State of Goa fixed the rates of minimum wages in various sectors, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

2. The State of Goa issued a notification dated 23/24.05.2016 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3 read with clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 and sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1948”) determining the minimum rates of wages payable to the various categories of the employees employed in various trades in the Scheduled Employment, which included the basic rates of wages plus special allowance. The revised minimum rates of wages as per the said notification is as under:-

    “(a) Basic rates of wages as set out in Columns (3) of the Schedule, annexed to this notification and payable to the categories of employees mentioned against them in Column (2) thereof; and

    (b) Government also hereby introduce payment of special allowance (hereinafter referred to as variable dearness allowance) in addition to the revised minimum rates of wages as notified above at the rate of Rs. 0.95 paise for every point rise or fall beyond 269 points of All India Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers base year 2001=100. Commissioner, Labour and Employment, Panaji shall calculate, adjust and notify such special allowance first time on and from 01-10-2016 based on the average All India Consumer Price Index for Industrial workers (2001=100) for the period 1st January to 30th June, 2016. Thereafter, Commissioner, Labour and Employment, Panaji shall periodically adjust and notify the rate of special allowance once in every six months on 1st April and 1st October every year based on the average of All India Consumer Price Index (2001=100) for the period from July to December and January to June of the preceding period respectively."

2.1 That thereafter the State Government issued the impugned Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016 under which it corrected the earlier notification dated 23/24.05.2016. The word clause (i) was substituted as clause (iii). The relevant part of the said Notification reads as under:-

    “PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL GAZETTE-GOVERNMENT OF GOA, (EXTRAORDINARY N0.3) SERIES I No. 15

    DATED 14TH JULY 2016

    Department of Labour

    Errata

    24/21/2009-LAB-ll/472

    In the Notifications from the Labour Department published in the Official Gazette, Series I No. 7 (Extraordinary No. 3) dated 24-5-2016 regarding revision of minimum rates of wages, the following may be corrected: -

    (1) At page 311, the word "clause (i)" may be read as "clause (iii)".

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxx”

At this stage, it is required to be noted that the Act, 1948 allows the State Government under Section 4(1) to fix the rates of minimum wages in three different ways as under:-

    "(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; 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 authorised; 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."

2.2 The State Government while issuing the notification dated 23/24.05.2016 chose the first option and fixed the mi


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top