The court upheld the validity of minimum wage revisions under the Minimum Wages Act, emphasizing compliance with statutory provisions and rejecting claims of arbitrariness.

ORDER

Per: Justice Vivek Rusia

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 04.03.2024 (Notification No. F 4(B)1/2014/A 16) and the subsequent notification dated 13.03.2024 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 18.07.2019, concerning the constitution of the Advisory Board under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 .

(ii) Notification dated 04.03.2024 (No. F-4(B) 1/2014/A-16), revising the minimum wages for various scheduled employments in the state.

(iii) Notification dated 13.03.2024, 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