1. Appeal against a judgment upholding the validity of a Minimum Wages Act notification despite its subsequent quashing in separate writ proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 67924
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, Basant Balaji, JJ
MALABAR MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE – Appellant
Versus
LOBISH L.B. – Respondent
WA 1899/2026
Important Points
An order passed by an authority based on a notification in force at that time is not invalidated by a subsequent quashing of the notification if the quashing judgment is stayed by a higher court, as the stay renders the quashing judgment non-operative.
Subject
Labour Law - Minimum Wages
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Validity of an award passed based on a government notification which was subsequently quashed but later stayed by an appellate court - An order passed by an inferior authority while a notification was in force is not necessarily rendered void by the subsequent quashing of such notification, particularly when the judgment quashing the notification has been stayed and kept in abeyance. (Paras 5, 6, 10)
(B) Effect of stay on judgment - The quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of its passing; however, a stay of its operation does not lead to such a result, but only means that the judgment would not be operative from the date of passing the stay order. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
An appellant challenged a finding that a government notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, remained in force. The notification had been quashed by a Single Judge in separate writ petitions, but the operation of those judgments was subsequently stayed and kept in abeyance by a Division Bench. The appellant contended that an order passed by a Labour Court, which was based on the said notification, became unenforceable due to the quashing. However, the Labour Court order had been issued prior to the date the notification was quashed.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Labour Court order was issued while the notification was legally in force. The subsequent quashing of the notification did not automatically invalidate the order, especially since the judgment quashing the notification was stayed by a Division Bench. The court held that the stay on the quashing judgment meant it ceased to be in effect from the date of the stay.
Issues: Whether an order passed by a Labour Court based on a government notification remains enforceable if the notification is subsequently quashed by a court, but that quashing judgment is later stayed by a higher court.
Ratio Decidendi: A stay of operation of a judgment quashing an order does not restore the position as it stood on the date of passing but merely renders the judgment non-operative from the date of the stay. Since the award was passed while the notification was in force, it is not adversely impacted by the subsequent quashing or the interim stay granted in other proceedings.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Effect of stay on judgment - The quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of its passing; however, a stay of its operation does not lead to such a result, but only means that the judgment would not be operative from the date of passing the stay order. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
An appellant challenged a finding that a government notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, remained in force. The notification had been quashed by a Single Judge in separate writ petitions, but the operation of those judgments was subsequently stayed and kept in abeyance by a Division Bench. The appellant contended that an order passed by a Labour Court, which was based on the said notification, became unenforceable due to the quashing. However, the Labour Court order had been issued prior to the date the notification was quashed.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Labour Court order was issued while the notification was legally in force. The subsequent quashing of the notification did not automatically invalidate the order, especially since the judgment quashing the notification was stayed by a Division Bench. The court held that the stay on the quashing judgment meant it ceased to be in effect from the date of the stay.
Issues: Whether an order passed by a Labour Court based on a government notification remains enforceable if the notification is subsequently quashed by a court, but that quashing judgment is later stayed by a higher court.
Ratio Decidendi: A stay of operation of a judgment quashing an order does not restore the position as it stood on the date of passing but merely renders the judgment non-operative from the date of the stay. Since the award was passed while the notification was in force, it is not adversely impacted by the subsequent quashing or the interim stay granted in other proceedings.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Vinod Bhat, Anagha Lakshmy Raman, V. Namitha, Gitanjali Sadan Pillai
For the Respondents: Nazeeba O H, Terry V James
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Vinod Bhat, Anagha Lakshmy Raman, V. Namitha, Gitanjali Sadan Pillai
For the Respondents: Nazeeba O H, Terry V James
Table of Contents
2. Appellant challenges the continued enforcement of the notification; respondent maintains the notification remains valid due to the stay order granted by the Division Bench. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. The court analyzed the impact of a stay order on an underlying notification and concluded that a prior valid order is not rendered ineffective by subsequent judicial developments. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 10 )
4. A stay order granted by a high court does not retrospectively invalidate orders properly passed while the underlying notification was in force. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. The appeal is dismissed, affirming the impugned judgment while reserving the determination on the notification's current status for the pending Division Bench appeals. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. What is the legal effect of a stay order on an administrative notification?
A stay order renders a notification inoperative from the date of the order, but it does not retrospectively invalidate administrative or judicial awards that were issued while the notification was valid and in effect. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 10 )
7. Does a stay order on a judgment quashing a notification automatically revive previous proceedings?
While the status of the notification awaits final adjudication by the Division Bench, an interim stay on a judgment does not automatically invalidate orders that attained finality before the notification was quashed. (Para 9 , 12 )
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The appellant assails the judgment of the learned Single Judge, to the extent to which it holds that the notification dated 23.04.2018, issued by the State Government under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (‘Notification’ hereinafter), is still in force.
2. Sri.Vinod Bhat – learned counsel for the appellant, explained that the ‘Notification’ was challenged in two Writ Petitions, namely WP(C)Nos.15243 of 2018 and 14778 of 2018, by an Association of Nurses and owners of Private Hospitals; and that the same was quashed, vide judgment of a learned Single Judge, dated 23.01.2023. He conceded that there are two appeals pending against the said judgments, namely W.A.No.1002 of 2023 and W.A.No.988 of 2023, in which, a learned Division Bench has ordered that the operation and enforcement of the same ‘will remain stayed and shall be kept in abeyance’. He argued that, even in such scenario, the finding of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, that the ‘Notification’ is still in force, is without forensic support; and consequently, that Ext.P4 order of the learned Labour Court, Kozhikode, cannot be ordered to be enforced, since it has been issued edificed solely on such. He prayed that this appeal be thus allowed.
3. Sri.Terry V. James - appearing for respondent No.1, controverted the afore submissions, saying that, by the above mentioned interim order of the learned Division Bench, the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the two above referred writ petitions stands fully stayed and its operation in abeyance; and resultantly that the only inference to be drawn is that the ‘Notification’ is still in force. He then submitted that, as far as this case is concerned, even if it is to be taken otherwise, it would have little relevance because, Ext.P4 order was issued at a time when the ‘Notification’ was concededly in force – manifest from the fact that even the appellant admitted before the learned Labour Court that they were paying amounts under it to other employees. He argued that, therefore, the present attempt of the appellant is to avoid the legal consequences of Ext.P4 order; and prayed that this appeal be dismissed.
4. We will first deal with the aspect if Ext.P4 stands impacted on account of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, quashing the ‘Notification’.
5. Concededly, Ext.P4 order was issued at a time when the ‘Notification’ was in force – since it was quashed only on 23.01.2023; while, it is dated 07.11.2022. It may be true that the learned Single Judge, in the two Writ Petitions above mentioned, has quashed the ‘Notification’, which was relied upon by the Labour Court in issuing Ext.P4; but that, by itself, would not take away its worth.
6. That apart, as rightly argued by Sri.Terry V. James, the learned Division Bench has stayed the operation of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, making it clear that its implementation shall also be kept in abeyance.
7. In Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras [MANU/SC/0501/1992], the Honourable Supreme Court considered the impact of an order of stay by a High Court on the proceedings of an inferior Authority. The Honourable Court has succinctly held that the quashing of an order of such an Authority results in restoration of the position as it stood on the date of its passing; while, the stay of its operation does not lead to such a result, but only means that it would not be operative from the date of passing the stay order.
8. The Honourable Supreme Court, of course, was not dealing with the scenario of judgment of a learned Single Bench being stayed by a Division Bench – as is in the present case.
However, parity of reasoning compel only an inference that, once the judgment of a Single Judge has been stayed and its operation ordered to be deferred, the same would cease to be in effect, at least thereafter.
9. Coming back to the specific facts of this case, even if we are to assume tha
