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.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims to be the President of the Kerala Chemists and Druggists Association. The petitioner is before this court challenging Ext.P1 notification issued by the Government of Kerala in terms of the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 1948 Act) read with the provisions of Section 5 (2) of the 1948 Act, prescribing minimum wages for different categories of employees employed in medical shops in the State of Kerala.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Ext.P1 notification cannot be sustained in law. It is submitted that, under the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the 1948 Act, while issuing notification under sub-section (1) of of the 1948 Act, the Government should have regard to the matters set out in Sub-section (3) of of the 1948 Act and should prescribe different rates of wages for (i) different scheduled employments, (ii) different classes of work in the same scheduled employment, (iii) adults, adolescents, children and apprentices, (iv) different localities, etc. It is pointed out that minimum rates of wages have to be fixed by the hour, by the day, by the month or by such other larger wage period as may be prescribed. It is submitted that in the facts of this case, the constitution of the committees for the purposes of making recommendations to the Government is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the 1948 Act. It is pointed out that the so-called independent members of the committee were not independent persons having knowledge of the industry. It is submitted that, going by the Division Bench judgment of this court inKerala Non-Banking Finance Companies Welfare Association v. State of Kerala , 2019 (4) KLT 977 , the representatives of the industry must be the persons who actually have knowledge of the industry. It is submitted that this court in Punchiri Boat Service Limited, Aleppey v. State , 1955 KLT 686 has set out the manner in which the committees must be constituted under the provisions of of the 1948 Act. It is submitted that when the constitution of the committee is not in accordance with the provisions, the failure to do so will render the recommendations of the committee invalid. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court inVasudevan and others v. State of Kerala , 1959 KLT 904 to contend that, while the fixation of minimum wages in respect of any scheduled employment by the appropriate Government is no doubt, an administrative act which is final and as such not subject to judicial review on the question of quantum of minimum wages fixed, it is open to the petitioner to contend that the methodology adopted by the Government for the fixation of the minimum wage was not in accordance with the provisions of the 1948 Act. It is submitted that the committee has obviously not considered the matter in a proper way, and the contentions of the industry were not considered while the committee submitted its recommendations to the Government. It is submitted that the petitioner association was not given any representation in sub-committees or on the advisory board. It is submitted that the finding in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kerala Private Hospital Assn. v. State of Kerala , (2018) 1 SCC 98, which requires that the employers and employees' interests must be represented on the committee, in equal numbers, has been violated by the Government in the facts of the present case. It is submitted that inMinistry of Labour and Rehabilitation v. Tiffin's Barytes Asbestos & Paints Ltd. , (1985) 3 SCC 594 it has been found that persons not i