( 1. ) THE petitioners, who are bidi manufacturers, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenge the notification dated 19th December 1979 (Annexure-B) issued under sections 3 and 5 (2) of the minimum Wages Act, 1948 fixing rates of minimum wages for certain classes of employees.

( 2. ) THE proposal to fix minimum wages for three classes of employees, namely, Munim, Chowkidar and Cook (Rasoiya) was published on 25th June 1979. The notice publishing the proposal stated that the proposal will be taken into consideration after the expiry of two months from the date of publication of the notification in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette. It further stated that any objection or suggestion which may be received from any person with respect to the said proposal within the said period will be considered by the State Government. The proposal notified in so far as relevant was as follows:

EXPLANATION for the purpose of this Notification:-"1 (a) Zone I shall comprise of cities/towns with a population of 50,000 and above, including an area of 8 kms. from the Municipal Corporation/municipality limits and where such Municipal Corporation/municipality does not exist with such area shall also include area of 8 kms. from the limits of such city/town. (b) Zone II shall comprise of all the places not included in Zone I mentioned above. "

The petitioners submitted their objections within two months of the date of the notification of the proposal and they were heard. After consultation with the Advisory Board, the impugned notification dated 19th December 1979 was issued. The rates of minimum wages fixed by the impugned notification are as follows:

( 3. ) THE first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the notification issued under section 5 (1) (b) containing the proposal did not specify the date on which the proposal was to be taken into consideration and that this defect invalidated the final notification fixing the rates of minimum wages. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon narottamdas v. P. B. Gowarikar, (1961 MPLJ 302= AIR 1961 MP 182.) in support of this contention. This case does support the contention of the petitioners that specification of the date on which the proposal is to be taken into consideration has to be specified in the notification and that all representation submitted till that date can be considered on the date so specified before finally fixing the rates of minimum wages. In the instant case, however, it does not appear that any prejudice was caused to the petitioners. The petitioners do not say that they failed to file any objection which they wanted to file to the proposal because of non-specification of the date in the notification issued under section 5 (1) (b ). The petitioners were noticed before the consideration of the representations and were actually heard before the finalisation of rates of minimum wages. In the special circumstances of this case, non-specification of the date has resulted in no prejudice whatsoever and it would be a mere technicality if the final notification fixing the rates of minimum wages is quashed on the ground that the notification under section 5 (l) (b) was defective as it did not specify the date on which the proposal was to be taken into consideration.

( 4. ) IT was next contended that the rates of minimum wages fixed under section 3 read with section 5 (2) cannot be higher than the rates stated in the proposal. Section 5 ( l) (b) provides that in fixing minimum rates of wages or in revising minimum rates of wages so fixed, the appropriate Government shall by notification in the Official Gazette, publish its proposals for the information of persons likely to be affected thereby and specify a date, not less than two months from the date of the notification on which the proposals will be taken into consideration. Section 5 (2) then provides that after considering all representations received by it before the date specifi