Vijender Jain, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of the above mentioned two writ petitions as they involve common questions of law and facts.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the notifications dated 11.10.2002 and 10.6.2003 issued by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Labour and Employment Department, whereby the minimum wages as payable to the workers under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short, `the Act) have been revised/enhanced and made applicable with effect from 11.10.2002.

3. By virtue of notification dated 11.10.2002, the State government proposed to enhance the minimum wages as per the schedule attached with it and invited objections from the persons likely to be affected within a period of two months from the date of its issue.

4. After considering the objections so received, notification dated 10.6.2003 was issued and the rates of minimum wages to be paid to the workers were enhanced and made applicable with effect from the aforementioned date.

Both these notifications have been attached as Annexures P2 and P4 with C.W.P. No. 10092 of 2003, whereas the same are annexed as Annexures P4 and P6 with C.W.P. No. 15849 of 2003,

The essential challenge to the above mentioned notifications is primarily based on the following three grounds :-

(1) The notification dated 11.10.2002 proposing the revision of the rates of minimum wages did not reveal the base month and the year which the State intended to taken into consideration while fixing the minimum wages of the workers and it was contrary to the procedure as envisaged under the Act.

(2) The revised rates have been made applicable with effect from 11.10.2002 vide notification dated 10.6.2003, which could not have been done as the retrospective application thereof is not contemplated by the provisions of the Act.

(3) The notification dated 10.6.2003 has been issued without considering the objections of the petitioners which was contrary to the scheme of the Act.

5. In their written statements, the State of Haryana and its functionaries have controverted the averments made in the writ petitions and took up several preliminary objections. It has been emphasized therein that pursuant to notification dated 11.10.2002, only one set of objections was received from the employers and even that has been tampered with when attached as Annexure P3 with C.W.P. No. 10092 of 2003 as the same does not conform to the original. That apart, it has been pleaded that there was no infirmity in the fixing of the minimum wages and giving them effect from 11.10.2002 as the procedure laid down by the provisions of the Act has strictly been followed. The official respondents have also averred that the matter regarding revision of minimum wages has already been settled by a Division Bench of this Court which upheld similar notification and negated the challenge while deciding C.W.P. No. 13434 of 1995 - Pasupati Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited and others v. State of Haryana and others, on 25.1.1996.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that notification dated 11.6.2003 refers to the minimum rates of wages as being all inclusive, but, at the same time, in clause (3) thereof, it has been provided that adjustment in the wages shall be made six monthly, i.e., 1st January and 1st July, every year, after taking into account the average rise or fall in the Haryana State Working Class Consumer Price Index, which is not permissible under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. They argued that either the rates should be all inclusive as per the provisions of Section 4(1)(iii) or the same should be in consonance with Section 4(1)(i) and (ii), which provide for basic rate of wages and special allowance or basic rate with or without the cost of living allowance, but once the State Government resorts to provide an all inclusive rate, then it cannot have the other components to form the basis of minimum wages. Besides, the revision has been given retrospective effect whi