1. The petitioners are, an Association and two Industries engaged in the “Rubber Product Industry” wherein the Government sought to revise the minimum wages as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for brevity 'the Act'). The Government in accordance with clause (b) of sub-section 1 of Section 5 of the Act brought out a notification in the Official Gazette publishing the proposals for revision of the minimum wages for unskilled workers, skilled workers and highly skilled workers employed in the Rubber Products Industry. The same is produced herein as Ext.P2. Objections were called for from the employers as well as the employees and as is provided in the proviso to sub section (2) of Section 5, the Advisory Board was also consulted. Such consultation is evident by the recommendation made by the Advisory Board through Ext.P4(g). Subsequently, Government came out with Ext.P5 notification revising the minimum wages and providing for such minimum wages to be paid to various categories of employees engaged in the Rubber Products Industry.

2. Ext.P5 is assailed in this writ petition on the ground that what had not been proposed in Ext.P1 has been additionally included in Ext.P5, ie, the, service weightage, and the provision for monthly basic wages for the managerial staff. One of the other contentions raised is that the Government while revising the minimum wages in the Industry had not taken into account the vast disparity in the capacity of the employers. I have heard learned senior counsel Sri. U.K.Ramakrishnan and the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 as also the 3rd respondent.

3. The contention raised against the 'service weightage' is insofar as the same having not figured in the proposals notified by the Government as per Ext.P1 as also the same being not includable in the very concept of basic wages. The learned senior counsel has placed reliance on Muir Mills Company Ltd. v. Their workmen and another (1960 (II) LLJ 586) to contend that 'service weightage' could not be included within the concept of basic wages. The contention of the petitioners is that what is permitted to be fixed as minimum wages by the Act is the basic wages payable to a category of employees which shall be uniform, with respect to all the employees coming within the category, engaged in the Industry. An incentive to be provided by the employer cannot be included within the concept of basic wages and the same would definitely be outside the power of the Government acting under the specific provisions of the Act, is the argument.

4. Muir Mills Company Ltd. was a case in which the employees were entitled to two types of additional emoluments. One, production linked bonus and the other an incentive bonus, latter of which would be payable on a certain standard of production being achieved. The Government under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for brevity 'the I.D. Act') made an order laying down the standards of basic wages and dearness allowance. The employers then raised the basic wage payable to that standard and discontinued the additional emoluments, which had, by then become a part of the terms of service. The management's contention that the prescription of basic wages included the additional emoluments was negatived. It was in that context that the Honourable Supreme Court, held that “it is reasonable to think that only such emoluments which are receivable by the workmen generally, as a normal feature of their earnings and therefore, satisfy the characteristics of “basic wage” are intended to be covered by the consolidation”. It is pertinent that the learned Judges of the Honourable Supreme Court also noticed that there may be variables which could be taken into account by the Government while fixing such basic wages.

5. This Court is not convinced that the decision can be applied squarely in the present case, dealing with the fixation of minimum wages as per the Act. The primary fallacy in the a