Introduction:

The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 5(1)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, must be followed when the State Government undertakes to revise minimum wages through the proposal-and-objection mechanism. The Court held that once the Government chooses to proceed under this provision, it cannot bypass the mandatory publication of the proposed wage revision in the Official Gazette or deny affected stakeholders the statutory opportunity to submit objections merely because consultations and meetings have subsequently taken place.

A Division Bench comprising Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan dismissed an appeal filed by two industry associations challenging a Single Judge’s order dated June 3, 2026. The Single Judge had quashed the Karnataka Government’s minimum wage notification dated January 17, 2023, concerning the garment industry, on the ground that the statutory procedure had not been properly completed. The Government had also been directed to undertake a fresh wage revision exercise pursuant to the draft notification issued in 2018 within six months.

The dispute arose from the State Government’s efforts to revise minimum wages for workers employed in Karnataka’s garment sector. The controversy involved not only the adequacy of the wage rates eventually notified but also the legality of the process through which those rates were determined. In particular, the proceedings raised questions about whether stakeholder consultations could substitute for the statutory publication and objection procedure and whether the Government could calculate a fresh wage increase by relying on an earlier notification that had already been declared inoperative by the High Court.

The relevant statutory framework is contained in Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which prescribes the procedure for fixing and revising minimum wages. Section 5(1)(a) permits the appropriate Government to appoint committees to conduct inquiries and advise it on the fixation or revision of minimum wages. Section 5(1)(b), on the other hand, provides a mechanism under which the Government publishes its proposals in the Official Gazette and considers representations, suggestions and objections received from affected persons before finalising the rates. The provision also contemplates consultation with the advisory board.

These procedures serve an important purpose. Minimum wage revision directly affects workers’ livelihoods, employers’ financial obligations and the economic conditions of an industry. The statutory process is therefore designed to ensure that wage decisions are not made solely through informal discussions or administrative assessments, but through a legally prescribed mechanism that allows the relevant stakeholders to participate.

The background to the present dispute dates back to February 22, 2018, when the State Government issued a draft notification proposing a revision of minimum wages for the garment industry. The draft was subsequently withdrawn on March 22, 2018. The Garment and Textile Workers Union (GATWU) challenged that withdrawal before the High Court. On April 13, 2020, a Division Bench set aside the withdrawal order, revived the 2018 draft notification and directed the Government to proceed further on its basis under Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act.

However, instead of completing the process through fresh publication of the proposal in the Official Gazette, the Government held stakeholder meetings on January 11, 2022, and September 6, 2022. It also considered a study conducted by the Technical Consultancy Services Organisation Karnataka (TECSOK). The Government eventually issued the notification dated January 17, 2023, granting a 14 per cent increase over the wage rates specified in a notification dated October 31, 2019.

The difficulty was that the 2019 notification had already been held to be inoperative by the Division Bench in its judgment dated April 13, 2020. The 2023 notification was therefore challenged on both procedural and substantive grounds. GATWU argued, among other things, that the prescribed statutory process had not been followed and that the notified basic rate of ₹401.07 per day was lower than the rates proposed in the 2018 draft and those applicable to certain other scheduled employments.

On June 3, 2026, the Single Judge partly allowed the challenge, quashed the 2023 notification for non-compliance with Section 5(1)(b) and directed the State Government to complete the revision exercise pursuant to the revived 2018 draft notification within six months. Two industry associations, aggrieved by that decision, preferred an appeal.

The Division Bench ultimately upheld the Single Judge’s order. Its decision clarifies that where the Government has expressly invoked Section 5(1)(b), statutory publication and the opportunity to object cannot be replaced by meetings or consultations. It also confirms that a notification already declared inoperative cannot be used as the foundation for a fresh revision of minimum wages.

Arguments of the Parties:

The Industry Associations’ Challenge to the Single Judge’s Order

The appeal was filed by two industry associations challenging the Single Judge’s decision to quash the minimum wage notification dated January 17, 2023. Their challenge brought before the Division Bench the legality of the procedure adopted by the State Government and the validity of the directions requiring a fresh wage revision exercise for the garment industry.

The available case summary does not set out the complete grounds of appeal or reproduce every submission advanced by the industry associations. It would therefore be inappropriate to attribute to them specific arguments that are not reflected in the reported material. Their challenge, however, arose from the Single Judge’s decision to invalidate the 2023 notification and require the Government to complete the revision process in accordance with the revived 2018 draft.

The central legal issue in the appeal was whether the State Government’s consultations with stakeholders, together with its consideration of the TECSOK study, could be treated as sufficient compliance with the procedure under Section 5(1)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act. The dispute required the Court to consider whether stakeholder participation in meetings could cure the absence of the statutory publication and objection process.

The associations’ appeal also brought into focus the consequences of the Single Judge’s directions for the garment industry. Minimum wage notifications determine the minimum remuneration that employers must pay workers within the relevant scheduled employment. An order quashing a notification and requiring a fresh exercise may affect employers’ wage calculations and the regulatory framework governing employment in the sector.

Nevertheless, the legal validity of a wage notification cannot be assessed solely by considering the practical consequences of its cancellation. The Government must exercise its statutory power in the manner prescribed by the legislation. Where a notification is challenged on the ground that a mandatory statutory procedure was not followed, the Court must determine whether the steps taken by the Government satisfy the requirements of the relevant provision.

A related issue concerned the use of the October 31, 2019 notification as the basis for calculating the 14 per cent increase announced in January 2023. Since the earlier notification had been declared inoperative by the High Court in 2020, the legality of using it as the benchmark for a subsequent wage revision was also in question.

The appeal therefore required the Division Bench to examine whether the Single Judge had correctly interpreted the statutory procedure and the legal effect of the earlier judgment. The Bench ultimately found no reason to disturb the Single Judge’s conclusions.

The Workers’ Union’s Objections to the 2023 Notification

The Garment and Textile Workers Union had challenged the Government’s approach to wage revision after the State withdrew the original draft notification issued on February 22, 2018. The Union’s challenge to the withdrawal resulted in the Division Bench’s judgment dated April 13, 2020, which set aside the withdrawal order and revived the draft notification.

The revived draft was significant because it provided the basis on which the Government was required to continue the wage revision exercise. According to the subsequent proceedings, the State was expected to complete the process in accordance with the statutory framework applicable to the proposal.

The principal procedural objection was that the Government had not republished the proposal in the Official Gazette before finalising the 2023 wage notification. Instead, it proceeded through stakeholder meetings and consultation with a TECSOK study. The Union’s position, as reflected in the case summary and the Court’s discussion, was that these steps could not replace the formal statutory procedure under Section 5(1)(b).

The requirement to publish a proposal and invite objections is not merely an administrative formality. It gives affected persons a recognised opportunity to examine the proposed rates and communicate their concerns before the Government makes its final decision. Workers’ representatives, employers and other affected stakeholders may have different views on the appropriate wage structure, the prevailing cost of living and the economic circumstances of the relevant industry. The statutory process provides a formal means of bringing those views before the decision-making authority.

The Union also questioned the substantive basis of the 2023 notification. The Government had announced a 14 per cent increase over the rates specified in the October 31, 2019 notification. However, that notification had already been held to be inoperative by the Division Bench in April 2020. The Union’s objection was therefore not confined to the amount of the increase; it also concerned the legal validity of using the earlier rates as the starting point for a fresh revision.

Further, GATWU submitted that the basic rate of ₹401.07 per day specified in the 2023 notification was lower than the rates proposed in the 2018 draft and lower than those applicable to other scheduled employments. This contention highlighted the potential consequences of the Government’s decision to proceed on a different basis from the revived draft.

The Single Judge accepted the challenge to the extent of finding that the 2023 notification could not stand because the prescribed procedure had not been followed. The Court accordingly quashed the notification and directed the Government to complete the exercise within six months.

The State Government’s Procedure and the Legal Questions Before the Court

The Government’s course of action formed a central part of the dispute. After the 2018 draft notification was revived by the High Court, the State conducted stakeholder meetings in January and September 2022 and considered the TECSOK study before issuing the notification dated January 17, 2023.

The State’s position before the Single Judge was particularly relevant because it had itself stated that the exercise was being undertaken under Section 5(1)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act. That position shaped the legal framework within which the process had to be assessed. Once the Government chose the proposal-and-objection procedure, the statutory requirements attached to that route became applicable.

The Division Bench emphasised that the Government could not dispense with publication in the Official Gazette and the opportunity to submit objections merely because stakeholders had subsequently participated in meetings. The distinction was between consultation as an administrative activity and compliance with the formal procedure established by legislation.

The State’s decision to use the 2019 notification as a benchmark also raised a separate legal difficulty. That notification had already been held inoperative by the Division Bench’s earlier judgment. The Government could not simply treat the earlier rates as a legally effective foundation for a new wage revision without addressing the effect of that judgment.

The resulting questions were therefore twofold: whether the Government had complied with the procedure required by Section 5(1)(b), and whether the wage increase could lawfully be calculated by reference to a notification that had ceased to operate as a consequence of the earlier judicial decision.

The Division Bench answered both questions against the validity of the 2023 notification. It held that the statutory process had to be completed in accordance with the provision invoked by the State and that the inoperative 2019 notification could not serve as the foundation or yardstick for the fresh revision.

Court’s Judgment:

Section 5(1)(b) Requires Compliance With the Prescribed Statutory Procedure

The Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan dismissed the appeal filed by the two industry associations and upheld the Single Judge’s order quashing the January 17, 2023 minimum wage notification.

The Court’s reasoning began with the Government’s own position concerning the statutory provision under which it had undertaken the wage revision. As recorded in the proceedings before the Single Judge, the State had stated that the exercise was being conducted under Section 5(1)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

That provision establishes a specific mechanism for fixing or revising minimum wages. It contemplates publication of the Government’s proposals in the Official Gazette, followed by consideration of the suggestions and objections received from affected persons. The statutory framework also requires consultation with the advisory board.

The Bench held that, once the Government had invoked Section 5(1)(b), it was bound to comply with the procedure prescribed by that provision. The requirements of publication and the statutory opportunity to object could not be treated as optional steps that the Government could omit at its discretion.

The Court observed that the State’s decision to conduct stakeholder meetings did not alter this position. Participation in meetings may provide useful information and allow the Government to hear the views of affected groups. However, such meetings do not automatically fulfil the distinct legal function served by publication in the Official Gazette and the opportunity to submit formal objections.

The Bench explained the position in clear terms: “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 observation reflects a fundamental principle of statutory administration. Where legislation prescribes a particular procedure for exercising a statutory power, the authority must follow that procedure. Informal consultations or alternative administrative measures cannot ordinarily be treated as substitutes for a mandatory requirement expressly contained in the statute.

The significance of the ruling lies in the fact that the Government was not free to select some elements of the statutory process while omitting others. Having proceeded under Section 5(1)(b), it was required to complete the revision in accordance with that provision. The fact that stakeholder meetings had taken place could not, by itself, cure the absence of the prescribed publication and objection procedure.

The Revival of the 2018 Draft Required the Statutory Exercise to Be Completed

The Court also examined the history of the 2018 draft notification and the legal consequences of the earlier Division Bench judgment dated April 13, 2020.

The State Government had originally issued the draft notification on February 22, 2018, proposing revisions to minimum wages in the garment industry. It withdrew the draft on March 22, 2018, prompting GATWU to challenge the withdrawal before the High Court.

On April 13, 2020, the Division Bench set aside the withdrawal order, revived the draft notification and directed the Government to proceed further on its basis under Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act. The revival meant that the wage revision exercise had to be carried forward in accordance with the legal position established by that judgment.

The subsequent proceedings revealed that the Government had conducted meetings on January 11, 2022, and September 6, 2022, before issuing the 2023 notification. However, the formal publication and objection procedure contemplated by Section 5(1)(b) had not been completed in the manner required.

The Division Bench agreed with the Single Judge that the meetings could not take the place of the statutory publication. It observed that the 2018 draft had been issued under Section 5(1)(b), and that, after its revival by the earlier judgment, the statutory process had to be completed in accordance with that provision.

This part of the ruling is important because the Government’s obligation arose within the context of an earlier judicial decision. The revival of the draft did not give the State unrestricted freedom to devise a different procedure. Rather, the State was required to proceed consistently with the legal framework applicable to the revived proposal.

The Court’s reasoning preserved the effect of the earlier judgment and ensured that the Government’s subsequent action was assessed against the procedure it was required to follow. The stakeholder meetings could supplement the decision-making process, but they could not displace the formal statutory requirements.

Stakeholder Meetings Cannot Substitute for Gazette Publication

A central feature of the judgment is the distinction between stakeholder consultation and statutory participation.

Government authorities often consult interested groups when preparing policies or making decisions affecting a particular industry. Such consultations may provide practical information, reveal competing concerns and help the authority understand the consequences of a proposed measure. However, where the legislature has expressly prescribed a formal process, general consultation does not automatically amount to compliance with that process.

Publication of a proposal in the Official Gazette serves a distinct function. It formally communicates the proposed action and provides a recognised opportunity for affected persons to submit objections or suggestions before the Government reaches its final decision. It also establishes a transparent procedural framework within which the proposal can be examined.

For minimum wage revision, this opportunity is particularly significant. Workers may seek higher rates to reflect their living costs, while employers may raise concerns about the economic impact of proposed changes. Trade unions and industry associations may also have differing views on the wage structure. The statutory process is intended to enable the Government to consider such representations before fixing the applicable rates.

The Court did not hold that meetings or studies such as the TECSOK report were inherently irrelevant. Rather, the point was that such measures could not replace a mandatory requirement imposed by Section 5(1)(b). The State could consider research, consult stakeholders and assess the economic circumstances of the industry, but it was still required to complete the statutory publication and objection process.

The distinction is a significant safeguard against treating procedural requirements as mere formalities. When a statute specifies how a decision must be made compliance is part of the legality of the decision itself.