2022 (5) TMI 1663 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of the Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016 issued by the State of Goa modifying/correcting its earlier notification dated 23/24.05.2016 by which the State of Goa fixed the rates of minimum wages in various sectors - HELD THAT - Vide Notification dated 23/24.05.2016, the State Government determined the minimum wages, which included the basic rates of wages and the special allowance. The notification specifically stated that the said notification has been issued in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 read with Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 and Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act, 1948. As can be seen from the contents of the said notification, the said notification was issued in consultation with the Minimum Wage Advisory Board and thereafter the minimum wages were revised. Thus, the minimum wages were revised under Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 after following the due procedure as required Under Section 5. Once the minimum wages were revised and determined, which included the basic rates of wages and the special allowance as per Section 4(1)(i) of the Act, 1948, thereafter it cannot be said that there was any clerical and/or arithmetical mistake in mentioning Clause (i). The minimum wages were revised and determined even after consultation with the Minimum Wage Advisory Board as required Under Section 5 of the Act, 1948. Therefore, once there was no mistake, the same could not have been corrected in exercise of powers Under Section 10 of the Act, 1948. In the present case, a conscious decision was taken by the State Government after consultation with the Minimum Wage Advisory Board and thereafter the minimum wages were revised and determined in exercise of power Under Section 4(1)(i). Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any arithmetical and/or clerical mistake, which could have been corrected in exercise of powers Under Section 10 of the Act, 1948. Even by applying Section 21 of the General Clauses Act and assuming that the State was having power to amend, vary or rescind the notification, in that case also such power can be exercised in a like manner, namely after following the procedure, which was followed while issuing the original notification. Therefore, in the present case, assuming that the State was having the power to amend, vary or rescind the notification in exercise of powers Under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, in that case also, when the earlier notification dated 23/24.05.2016 was issued after following the due procedure as required Under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, 1948, the same procedure ought to have been followed even while varying and/or modifying the notification. Hence, the notification dated 23/24.05.2016 could not have been modified by such an Errata Notification which was issued in purported exercise of Section 10 of the Act, 1948. Conclusion - The Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016 was wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the relevant provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which ought to have been set aside by the High Court. The High Court has erred in dismissing the writ petition challenging the Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016 by accepting the case on behalf of the State that there was a clerical mistake, which is subsequently corrected by the Errata Notification. Appeal allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this case are:

• Whether the Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016 issued by the State of Goa, which corrected the earlier notification dated 23/24.05.2016 regarding minimum wages, was valid and within the jurisdiction of the State under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
• Whether the correction made by the Errata Notification was a permissible clerical or arithmetical error correction under Section 10 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
• Whether the procedure followed in issuing the Errata Notification complied with the legal requirements under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the General Clauses Act.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of the Errata Notification

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Minimum Wages Act, 1948, particularly Sections 3, 4, 5, and 10, governs the fixation and revision of minimum wages. Section 10 allows for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes. The General Clauses Act, Section 21, allows for amendment, variation, or rescindment of notifications.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court interpreted the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, emphasizing the requirement for a due process in fixing or revising minimum wages. It noted that the original notification was issued after following the required procedure, including consultation with the Minimum Wage Advisory Board.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Court found that the original notification dated 23/24.05.2016 was issued after due deliberation and was not a result of any clerical or arithmetical error. The Errata Notification did not specify under which legal provision it was issued.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the law to determine that the Errata Notification was not a mere correction of a clerical or arithmetical mistake but rather a substantive change that required following the same procedure as the original notification.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court rejected the State's argument that the Errata Notification corrected a clerical mistake, as the original decision was made consciously after consultation and deliberation. The Appellant's argument that the Errata Notification was issued without jurisdiction was upheld.
• Conclusions: The Errata Notification was deemed invalid and without jurisdiction as it did not comply with the procedural requirements of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

Issue 2: Compliance with Legal Requirements

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Sections 4 and 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, outline the procedure for fixing and revising minimum wages. Section 10 allows for corrections of clerical or arithmetical mistakes.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized the importance of following the statutory procedure for revising minimum wages, which includes consultation and consideration of objections and suggestions.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Court noted that the original notification was issued after following the due procedure, including consultation with the Minimum Wage Advisory Board, and that the Errata Notification failed to follow the same process.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the statutory requirements to conclude that the Errata Notification did not follow the necessary legal procedure for revising minimum wages.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court dismissed the State's argument that the Errata Notification was a correction of a clerical mistake, finding that the original notification was a result of a conscious decision-making process.
• Conclusions: The Errata Notification was not issued in compliance with the legal requirements of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and was therefore invalid.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "An arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation; a clerical mistake is a mistake in writing or typing. An error arising out of or occurring from an accidental slip or omission is an error due to a careless or inadvertent mistake or omission unintentionally made."
• Core Principles Established: The correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes under Section 10 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, must be limited to genuine errors and cannot be used to make substantive changes to notifications that were issued following due process.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016 was quashed and set aside. The original notification dated 23/24.05.2016, which included the basic rates of wages plus special allowance, was restored.

The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition was overturned, with no order as to costs.