Back
Upholds Quashing of Minimum Wage Notification for Garment Industry
In a significant ruling reinforcing in wage fixation, the has dismissed an appeal by industry bodies challenging a Single Judge order that quashed the 2023 minimum wage notification for the garment sector. The Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan held that cannot replace the of a wage proposal in the Official Gazette under .
Background: A Decade-Long Wage Revision Tangle
The dispute traces back to , when minimum wages for Karnataka's garment industry were last fixed. A draft notification proposing revised wages was published on , but the State Government withdrew it—along with three other final notifications—on . The challenged the withdrawal.
On
, a Division Bench set aside the withdrawal order, revived the 2018 draft notification, and directed the State to take
"further steps on the basis of the draft notification in accordance with Section 5 of the Act."
The
declined to interfere.
Instead of re-publishing the draft in the Gazette, the State conducted , consulted a study, and eventually issued a final notification on , granting a 14% hike over an earlier 2019 notification—which had itself been declared by the High Court in 2020. The union moved the High Court, leading to the Single Judge's order quashing the 2023 notification.
Arguments: Procedure vs. Substance
Appellants' ( & ) contention:
The draft notification had already been published in 2018; the subsequent meetings and consultations satisfied the statutory requirement. The 2019 notification, though , was merely used as a reference point, not as a binding yardstick. They argued that the Single Judge erred in ordering a fresh exercise under a repealed Act.
Respondent's (GATWU) submission:
The 2018 draft was withdrawn and revived only by the court; a fresh publication was mandatory. The 2023 notification relied on an 2019 notification, making it legally unsustainable. The repeal of the 1948 Act does not affect under the pending proceedings.
Court's Legal Analysis: No Shortcut to Statutory Compliance
The Division Bench emphatically rejected the industry's plea, holding that once Section 5(1)(b) was invoked, the State could not dispense with publication and the to file objections. The Court observed:
"The State itself stated before the learned Single Judge that the exercise was under Section 5(1)(b) of the Act of 1948. Once that provision was invoked, publication of the proposal in the Official Gazette and giving the to submit objections were not matters which could be dispensed with merely because the stakeholders had subsequently participated in meetings."
The Bench further noted that the 2023 notification's foundation—the 2019 notification—had already been held . Using it as a yardstick for a 14% hike was impermissible:
"Once the said notification was held to be , it could not have been adopted as the foundation or yardstick for a fresh revision of wages. The learned Single Judge has noticed this factual position and, in our view, rightly held that the Government could not proceed on the basis of a notification which had ceased to have operative effect."
On the repeal of the 1948 Act by the (effective ), the Court found that the rights crystallized by the 2020 Division Bench order were saved under Section 69 of the Code read with .
Key Observations
The Court made several noteworthy observations:
-
"The meetings held on 11.01.2022 and 06.09.2022 could not take the place of the publication contemplated by the statute."
-
"The direction in the impugned judgment is not a direction to initiate an entirely new exercise under a repealed statute, but to complete the exercise which had already become the subject matter of the pending proceedings."
-
"The judgment does not proceed on the basis that every revision must necessarily be an upward revision. The notification dated 17.01.2023 was quashed principally because the statutory procedure had not been followed."
Decision: Appeal Dismissed, Fresh Exercise Directed
The Division Bench dismissed the intra-court appeal, confirming the Single Judge's order in its entirety. The State Government has been directed to complete the wage revision exercise pursuant to the 2018 draft notification within six months, with the effective date to be fixed within five years from . If the revised wages exceed those already paid, workers will be entitled to 6% interest per annum on the difference from the due date.
The ruling serves as a stark reminder that under welfare legislation cannot be bypassed through , and that any wage revision must strictly adhere to the statutory framework.
