The Karnataka High Court has held that stakeholder consultations, while valuable, cannot substitute the mandatory requirement under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, to publish a draft notification inviting objections before revising wages in scheduled employments. The court made this observation while considering a petition challenging the validity of a wage revision process undertaken by the state government.
The court emphasized that statutory procedures prescribed under Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, must be strictly followed. It noted that the law requires the appropriate government to publish its proposals in the Official Gazette for the information of persons likely to be affected thereby and to specify a date, not less than two months from the date of such publication, on which the proposals will be taken into consideration.
The bench clarified that the purpose of this publication is to ensure transparency and provide an opportunity for affected stakeholders, including employers and employees, to submit their objections or suggestions. It stressed that this step is not merely advisory but a condition precedent to the valid revision of minimum wages.
The court rejected the argument that conducting stakeholder meetings could fulfil the statutory obligation of publication. It held that while such meetings may be informative and participatory, they do not meet the legal threshold of publishing a draft notification in the Official Gazette as mandated by law. The court observed that the mechanism of stakeholder engagement, however extensive, cannot replace the formal, widely accessible, and legally recognised process of gazette notification.
The judgment underscored that the statutory framework under the Minimum Wages Act is designed to balance executive authority with procedural safeguards. It warned that bypassing the publication requirement, even in favour of alternative consultative mechanisms, risks undermining the legislative intent of ensuring informed public participation in wage fixation processes.
The court further observed that the obligation to publish is not diminished by the fact that stakeholders may have been consulted through other means. It reiterated that each step in the wage revision process under the Act serves a distinct purpose and cannot be conflated or substituted.
In its operative conclusion, the Karnataka High Court held that any wage revision undertaken without prior publication of the draft notification in the Official Gazette, as required under Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, would be procedurally flawed and liable to be challenged on grounds of non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements.
The ruling reaffirms the primacy of statutory procedure in labour law matters and serves as a precedent for ensuring that executive actions in wage revision adhere strictly to the procedural mandates laid down by Parliament.