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, failure of which renders the notification illegal.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18^th day of December, 2025 Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 09.04.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.9184 of 2021.

Appellant was the petitioner in the W.P.(C).

2. The Writ Petition was filed by the appellant, which is an association of non-banking private financial institutions. They sought to quash Exhibits P2 and P7 notifications, issued by the 1^st respondent relating to fixing of minimum rates of wages payable to the employees of non-banking private financial institutions, under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1948'), contending that the same had been fixed in violation of the statutory prescriptions and norms.

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the W.P.(C) inter alia holding that no substantial grounds had been raised in the W.P.(C) to interfere with the notifications. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the W.P.(C), this Writ Appeal has been filed.

4. Heard Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, Advocate for the appellant and Smt.Sabeena P., Ismail, Special Government Pleader for the 1^st respondent.

5. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant can be summarised as follows:

● The learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the W.P (C), overlooking the fact that the impugned notification had been issued without complying with the mandatory procedures.

● The conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that there cannot be a challenge to Exhibit P7 in view of Exhibit R1(b) judgment dated 14.11.2019 is erroneous. The learned Single Judge failed to take note that the subject matter of the latter judgment was Exhibit P5 preliminary notification dated 28.07.2016 and that it did not concern Exhibit P7, which is dated 16.01.2020. Exhibit P7 was yet to be issued at the time of rendering of Exhibit R1(b) judgment. The earlier W.P.(C) No.26803 of 2017 was filed challenging Exhibit P5 preliminary notification, while the subsequent challenge was against Exhibit P7 final notification. Thus, the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the constructive res judicata is attracted is erroneous.

● The learned Single Judge had erred in concluding that the requirements of Section 27 of the Act of 1948 had been complied with since nothing tangible had been produced to substantiate the contention of the respondent that 3 months had been granted for suggestion or objection before final notification for enlisting in the schedule, which was a prerequisite under .

● The learned Single Judge had failed to note that the Advisory Board constituted under Section 7 had not been consulted by the Government as mandated under Section 5 (2) of the Act of 1948, and on the said account itself, Exhibit P7 notification was unsustainable in law.

● The learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate the fact that the Government had blindly endorsed the recommendations of a committee constituted under Section 5 (1) (a) of the Act, which in turn had made its recommendations relying on the scales of pay applicable to Scheduled Banks, District Co-operative Bank, Farmers Co-operative Bank, Urban Bank etc.

● The 1^st respondent had merely endorsed the scales recommended by the committee mechanically and without any proper application of mind.

● The learned Single Judge failed to note that the 1^st respondent ought to have fixed minimum wages taking into account the number of branches, profitability and net worth of different establishments.

● Exhibit P7 notification to the extent it fixes wages for private non-banking financial institutions, by prescribing a uniform wage rate for both single-branch registered money lenders with fewer than five em