The Karnataka High Court has held that once Section 5(1)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 has been invoked, the State cannot dispense with the publication of the proposal for wage revision in Official Gazette and statutory opportunity to file objections merely because the stakeholders had subsequently participated in the meetings.

Consequently, the Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan dismissed the appeal filed by two industry associations against a Single Judge order.

That order had quashed the 2023 minimum wage notification for non-compliance with the statutory process under Section 5(1)(b) of the Act and had directed the State to undertake a fresh exercise for the garment industry.

For context, Section 5 of the Act outlines the procedure to fix and revise minimum wages. While Section 5(1)(a) allows the State to appoint committees to enquire and advise regarding these wages, Section 5(1)(b) allows the State to publish its proposal in the Official Gazette and consider suggestions or objections filed by the affected persons. Under the latter provision, the government must consult an advisory board as well.

“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 statutory opportunity to submit objections were not matters which could be dispensed with merely because the stakeholders had subsequently participated in meetings,” the Court observed.

Noting that the 2018 draft notification— withdrawn on March 22, 2018, later revived by a High Court order in 2020 and used as the base for the 2023 notification— was issued under Section 5(1)(b), the Court said, “The learned Single Judge therefore rightly held that, after such revival, the statutory procedure had to be completed in accordance with Section 5(1)(b) of the Act of 1948. The meetings held on 11.01.2022 and 06.09.2022 could not take the place of the publication contemplated by the statute.”

Inoperative notification cannot be yardstick for fresh wage revision

The Division Bench further observed that the State, vide the 2023 notification, could not have granted a wage hike based on the 2019 notification, as the 2019 notification had already been held inoperative by the High Court in 2020.

“There is also a further difficulty in the notification dated 17.01.2023. The notification proceeded by taking the wages fixed under the notification dated 31.10.2019 as the basis and stated that the wages were enhanced by 14% over the rates fixed under that notification. However, the notification dated 31.10.2019 had already been held to be inoperative by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 13.04.2020,” the Court noted.

It added, “Once the said notification was held to be inoperative, 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 by virtue of the earlier judgment of the Division Bench.”

Dismissing the appeal, the High Court upheld the Single Judge order.

Background

The dispute stems from minimum wage notifications for Karnataka's garment industry. The State Government proposed to revise minimum wages for the garment sector and issued a Draft Notification dated February 22, 2018 in Official Gazette. However, it was soon withdrawn on March 22, 2018.

The Garment and Textile Workers Union (GATWU) challenged the withdrawal. On April 13, 2020, a Division Bench of High Court 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 under Section 5 of the 1948 Act.

Instead of issuing a fresh publication of the draft notification in the Official Gazette, the State conducted stakeholder meetings, consulted a study by TECSOK (Technical Consultancy Services Organisation Karnataka), and eventually issued a notification on January 17, 2023. This notification granted a 14% hike over an earlier notification issued in 2019—a notification that had already been declared inoperative by the High Court in 2020. The GATWU further submitted that the notified basic rate of Rs 401.07 per day was lower than rates proposed in the 2018 draft and lower than other scheduled employments.

GATWU challenged the 2023 notification. On June 3, 2026, a Single Judge partly allowed the plea, quashing the 2023 notification for procedural non-compliance and directing the Government to complete the wage revision exercise pursuant to the 2018 draft notification within six months. Aggrieved by this, two industry associations preferred an appeal.