The court upheld the validity of government notifications on minimum wage revisions, affirming compliance with procedural requirements under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

ORDER :

M.Dhandapani, J.

Aggrieved by the Government Orders issued and gazetted in and by which minimum wages have been fixed by the 1^st respondent in respect of the employment relating to the workmen engaged in the salt production activities, the present writ petition has been filed assailing the said Government Orders.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that it is engaged in the production of salt and that it is having a long term lease of about 1650 acres of saultry lands at Villipakkam Village and adjoining areas. The salt pans of the petitioner are providing direct and indirect employment to the villagers in the locality and that the workmen engaged by the contractors of the petitioner for the production activities work only for about 2 to 5 hours in a day and the payments for the activities of scrapping, hauling and heaping are paid on quantum basis and the workmen earn about Rs.500/- to Rs.600/- per day. Whileso, vide the impugned notification, in exercise of the powers conferred u/s 3 of the MINIMUM WAGES ACT , 1948 (for short ‘the Act’), have come to be issued fixing the minimum rates of wages for different activities that are being carried on in the salt pans in connection with the production of salt.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the impugned notification seeks to supersede the earlier notification dated 7.7.2010 issued by the 1^st respondent whereby the minimum rates of wages are sought to be increased by about 100% of the then fixed rates of minimum wages. The workmen do not work for the entire day, but only work for about 2 to 3 hours in a day, which has not at all been taken into consideration while fixing the minimum rates of wages. The petitioner became aware of the Government Order only when certain proceedings were initiated against the petitioner alleging non- payment of minimum wages. It is the further grievance of the petitioner that before enhancing the minimum wages the petitioner has not been put on notice about the proposal to revise the minimum rate of wages and the procedure provided for under the Act has not been followed and the minimum rate of wages are sought to be fixed arbitrarily without affording an opportunity to the petitioner, which is in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

4. It is the further stand of the petitioner that the work being done by the workmen is only for 2 to 3 hours per day has not been taken into consideration by the 1^st respondent while fixing the minimum wages and the minimum wages fixed for the various types of works are arbitrary. It is the further stand of the petitioner that though the notification has been issued in consultation with the Advisory Board stating that it has been published in the official gazette inviting proposal from persons, who are likely to be affected, however, the petitioner has not been put on notice nor given any opportunity before issuing the impugned notification. The arbitrary issuance of the notification has been questioned by the petitioner by filing the present petition.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is stark violation of the procedure in fixing the minimum wages as the procedure fixed for revising the minimum rates of wages have not been followed by the respondents and, therefore, the impugned notification cannot stand the test of law.

6. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that the said notification for minimum wages has been issued with