Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Rusia and Gajendra Singh, JJ.
Pithampur Audyogik Sangthan v. The State of M.P. & Others
Writ Petitions No. 9401 of 2024, 11921 of 2024 and 12606 of 2024 (Indore); Decided on 20.3.2025
(1) Minimum Wages Act, 1948 -- Ss. 3 and 5 -- revision of wages for establishments at different localities of State -- before revising rates of wages, Advisory Board considered different factors such as basic rates of wages, special allowance, economic climate of locality, general economic condition of industrial deployment in area, adequacy of wages etc. -- objections taken by members of petitioner Sangathan also duly considered -- Court cannot sit as expert appellate body to substitute its opinion -- apart from different factors like scheduled employment, different classes of work for adults, adolescents, children and apprentices, one of the considerations is locality of establishment -- there can be special wages looking to locality as a special case but it is not mandatory to fix or revise different minimum wages locality-wise -- Government has revised minimum rates of wages scheduled establishments-wise and category of employees-wise, which is the mandate of Act -- no further categorisation advisable -- none of the workers or Trade Union raised any such objection about discrimination or disparity in minimum wages -- establishment/employer is always free to give wages higher than minimum wage -- such higher wages shall be minimum wages in such employment -- Minimum Wages Act only ensures payment of minimum wages to employee for his survival and to live dignified and comfortable life -- petitioners have not come up with any specific data and figures to demonstrate what should be the difference of wages between two different localities -- Government may consider fixing different rates of wages for different localities if materials to that effect are made available, but it is not mandatory to always fix different minimum rates for different localities -- State Government has prescribed minimum wages for skilled, unskilled, and semi-skilled workers after considering cost of living index -- therefore, there is no illegality if different minimum wages have not been prescribed locality-wise. AIR 1963 SC 806 and 2015 SCC Online MP 7543 followed. 1968 SCC Online Gau. 47, 1977 SCC Online All. 562, (2018) 3 LLJ 622 Del., AIR 1955 SC 33 and AIR 1970 SC 2042 referred to. [Paras 21 to 23 & 25
(2) Minimum Wages Act, 1948 -- S. 3 -- revision of wages -- increment of 25% -- wages have to be revised after interval of five years -- State Government revised rates after ten years -- increase of 25% means 12.5% per five years -- not on higher side. [Para 28
(3) Minimum Wages Act, 1948 -- Ss. 3, 9 and 2(c) -- wage revision based on recommendations of Advisory Board -- are valid. 2015 SCC Online MP 7543 followed. AIR 1962 SC 12, AIR 2020 SC 5107, Writ Petition No. 10772 of 2024 decided on 10.2.2025, 2010 (3) MPLJ 29 and 2022 (2) MPLJ 621 referred to. [Paras 15, 24 & 28
¼1½ U;wure etnwjh vf/kfu;e] 1948 && /kkjk 3 rFkk 5 && jkT; ds fofHkUu ifj{ks=ksa esa LFkkiuksa ds fy, etnwjh dk iqujh{k.k && etnwjh dh njsa iqujhf{kr djus ds iwoZ lykgdkj cksMZ }kjk etnwjh dh ewy njksa] fo'ks"k HkÙks] ifj{ks= ds vkfFkZd okrkoj.k] {ks= esa vkS|ksfxd vfHkfu;kstu dh lk/kkj.k vkfFkZd n'kk] etnwjh dh i;kZIrrk vkfn tSls fofHkUu dkjdksa ij fopkj fd;k x;k && ;kph laxBu ds lnL;ksa }kjk dh xbZ vkifÙk;ksa ij Hkh lE;d~ fopkj fd;k x;k && U;k;ky; fo'ks"kK vihy fudk; ds :i esa dk;Z dj viuh jk; çfrLFkkfir ugha dj ldrk && vuqlwfpr fu;kstu] o;Ldksa] dqekjksa] ckydksa vkSj f'k{kqvksa ds fy, dk;Z ds fofHkUu oxksZ tSls dkjdksa ds vfrfjä] LFkkiu dk ifj{ks= fopkj.kh; gS && ifj{ks= dh –f"V ls] fo'ks"k fLFkfr ds :i esa] fo'ks"k etnwjh gks ldrh gS] ijarq ifj{ks=&okj fHkUu&fHkUu U;wure etnwjh fu;r ;k iqujhf{kr djuk vkKkid ugha && ljdkj us etnwjh dh U;wure njksa dks vuqlwfpr LFkkiu&okj rFkk deZpkfj;ksa ds oxZ&okj iqujhf{kr fd;k] tks vf/kfu;e dh vkKk gS && blds vkxs oxhZdj.k mfpr ugha && fdlh Hkh deZdkj ;k O;olk; la?k us U;wure etnwjh esa foHksn ;k fo"kerk ds ckjs esa ,slh dksbZ vkifÙk ugha dh && U;wure etnwjh ls vf/kd etnwjh nsus ds fy, LFkkiu@fu;kstd lnSo Lora= gS && ,slh vf/kd etnwjh ,sls fu;kstu esa U;wure etnwjh gksxh && U;wure etnwjh vf/kfu;e esa deZpkjh dks dsoy mlds thfor jgus rFkk xfjeke;h vkSj vkjkenk;d thou ds fy, U;wure etnwjh dk lank; lqfuf'pr fd;k x;k gS && ;kphx.k us ;g çnf'kZr djus ds fy, dksbZ fofufnZ"V lkexzh vkSj vk¡dM+s is'k ugha fd, gSa fd fHkUu ifj{ks=ksa esa etnwjh dk D;k varj gksuk pkfg, && ;fn ml vk'k; dh lkexzh miyC/k djkbZ tk, rks ljdkj }kjk fofHkUu ifj{ks=ksa ds fy, etnwjh dh fHkUu&fHkUu njsa fu;r djus ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gS] ijarq lnSo fofHkUu ifj{ks=ksa ds fy, fHkUu&fHkUu U;wure njsa fu;r djuk vkKkid ugha && jkT; ljdkj us fuokZg&O; lwpdkad ij fopkj djus ds mijkar dq'ky] vdq'ky] rFkk v/kZdq'ky deZdkjksa ds fy, U;wure etnwjh fofgr dh gS && vr%- ;fn ifj{ks=&okj fHkUu&fHkUu U;wure etnwjh fofgr ugha dh xbZ rks dksbZ voS/krk ugha dh xbZA ,vkbvkj 1963 ,llh 806 rFkk 2015 ,llhlh vkWuykbu ,eih 7543 vuqlfjrA 1968 ,llhlh v‚uykbu xqok] 47] 1977 ,llhlh v‚uykbu byk- 562] ¼2018½3 ,y,yts 622 fnYyh] ,vkbvkj 1955 ,llh 33 rFkk ,vkbvkj 1970 ,llh 2042 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 21 ls 23 ,oa 25
¼2½ U;wure etnwjh vf/kfu;e] 1948 && /kkjk 3 && etnwjh dk iqujh{k.k && 25 izfr'kr dh o`f) && etnwjh ik¡p o"kZ ds varjky ds i'pkr~ iqujhf{kr dh tkuk gksrh gS && jkT; ljdkj us nl o"kZ i'pkr~ njsa iqujhf{kr dha && 25 izfr'kr dh o`f) dk vFkZ gS çR;sd ik¡p o"kZ esa 12-5 izfr'kr dh o`f) && mPprj ughaA ¼iSjk 28
¼3½ U;wure etnwjh vf/kfu;e] 1948 && /kkjk 3] 9 rFkk 2¼x½ && lykgdkj cksMZ dh flQkfj'kksa ij vk/kkfjr etnwjh dk iqujh{k.k && fof/kekU; gSA 2015 ,llhlh vkWuykbu ,e ih 7543 vuqlfjrA ,vkbvkj 1962 ,llh 12] ,vkbvkj 2020 ,llh 5107] fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 10772 lu~ 2024 fu.khZr fnukad 10-2-2025] 2010 ¼3½ ,eih,yts 29 rFkk jkT; 2022 ¼2½ ,eih,yts 621 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 15] 24 ,oa 28
ORDER
Rusia, J. -- 1. This order shall govern the disposal of W.P. No.9401/2024, W.P.11921/2024 & W.P.12606/2024. The petitioners being industrial associations and charitable institutions have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek judicial intervention.
2. The petitioners are challenging the legality and validity of the impugned notifications issued by the Respondents notably the notification dated 4.3.2024 (Notification No. F 4(B)1/2014/A 16) and the subsequent notification dated 13.3.2024 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh to revise the minimum wages applicable to various scheduled employments throughout the State under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The petitioners Pithampur Audyogik Sangthan representing industrial interests in Pithampur; the Association of Industries Madhya Pradesh representing various industrial units across the state; and Ujjain Charitable Trust Hospital & Research Centre representing charitable institutions to which the wage revisions apply.
3. Vide the impugned notifications minimum wages for the employees/workmen working in 68 scheduled employments have been revised @ 25% (approx.) after 10 years. The common grievance of the petitioners is that this uniform hike in wages is irrespective of the differing cost of living between establishments situated in urban and rural areas and therefore suffers from arbitrariness and unreasonableness. The petitioners have submitted that the Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Advisory Board recommendations were adopted after a four-year delay and the board was also improperly constituted with an imbalance in representation and violation of the statutory provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The notifications issued by the state of Madhya Pradesh which are under challenge by the petitioners are as follows :
(i) Notification dated 18.7.2019, concerning the constitution of the Advisory Board under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
(ii) Notification dated 4.3.2024 (No. F-4(B) 1/2014/A-16), revising the minimum wages for various scheduled employments in the state.
(iii) Notification dated 13.3.2024, issued by the Labour Commissioner, reiterating the revised wage structure.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the impugned notification revising the minimum wages suffers from arbitrariness and lacks a rational basis as it fails to take into account economic disparities between urban and rural areas. According to them metropolitan cities such as Indore, Bhopal, and Jabalpur have a substantially higher cost of living than smaller towns and villages yet the notification prescribes a uniform wage structure across the entire state. This approach disregards regional economic variations and imposes an undue financial burden on industries operating in areas with lower operational costs and limited economic activity. Such an indiscriminate uniform fixation of minimum wages is contrary to sections 3 and 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which require the appropriate government to consider factors such as the cost of living, prevailing wages in comparable industries, localities and local economic conditions while fixing and revising minimum wages.
5. The Learned Counsel further submitted that the composition of the Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Advisory Board violated the provisions of section 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which mandates equal representation of employers, employees, and independent members. Three of the five employer representatives on the advisory Board at that time were no longer holding valid positions in the scheduled employments which they were meant to represent, thereby rendering their appointment ineffective. Moreover, the inclusion of Ms. Shikha Joshi, Labour Commissioner, Indore, as an independent member is also in clear violation of statutory provisions, as it compromises the neutrality of the Board and creates a conflict of interest. The learned senior counsel has relied on the judgment in th
The court upheld the validity of government notifications on minimum wage revisions, affirming compliance with procedural requirements under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
The court upheld the Government's authority to revise minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act, emphasizing limited grounds for judicial review.
The State Government has the authority to make interim arrangements for enhancing the wages of tea garden workers, pending finalization of the minimum wage settlement under the Minimum Wages Act, 194....
The principles of natural justice require stakeholder participation in wage fixation processes, and failure to include employers renders the decision arbitrary.
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.
The government’s discretion in fixing minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act is legally valid and not subject to judicial review except on substantial grounds.
The validity of notifications fixing minimum wages is contingent on compliance with statutory procedures, particularly the issuance of preliminary notices and consultation with an Advisory Board, fai....
Point of Law : when a statute gives a right and provides a forum of adjudication of rights, remedy has to be sought only under the provisions of that Act and the performance of the rights has to be e....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
