MEHROTRA C J. These two Rules raise common questions and are disposed of by one order. (2) Civil Rule No. 175 of 1983 arises out of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by one A. K. Ghatak, proprietor of Lahorijan arid Nirmal Kumar Tea Estates. The petitioner is the proprietor of P. N. Ghatak & Company having its Head Office in Calcutta. The company owns tea gardens in the State of Assam and in the State of West Bengal. Nirmal Kumar Tea Estate and Lahori­jan Tea Estate are situate in North Cachar and Mikir Hills and are owned by the company. In the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus direct­ing the opposite parties, the State of Assam, the Secretary, Government of Assam, Labour Depart­ment, Shri K. C. Baishya, Labour Inspector, Golaghat, and Shri S. Day, Labour OIBcer (Plantation), Shillong, to give effect to the recommendations of the Minimum Wages Committee arrived at by its meeting held on 21st March, 1960 and further directing them not to implement the Central Wage Board for the Tea Plantation Industries' resolution as in the case of Cachar gardens. (3) The brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that on 10th October, 1950 a Minimum Wages Committee for tea plantation in Assam was formed by the Government of Assam. The Committee was entrusted with the task of apprising the Govern­ment for fixing the minimum wages in respect of employment in tea plantation in Assam under section 5(1) (A) of the Minimum Wages Act, 19-38. The Committee submitted its report On 18th November 1951 and recommended the pattern of wage structure of different plantations in different areas in the State of Assam. By a notification dated 11th March 1952 the recommendations of the said Minimum Wages Committee, which were accepted by the Government, were enforced. The State of Assam was divided into three zones - (1) tea gardens situated in Kamrup, Nowgoug and North Lakhimpur, (2) rest of Assam Valley, and (3) Cachar. The two tea gardens owned by the petitioner were located in the Mikir Hills. They were grouped with the rest of Assam. The State of Assam was divided into three zones - (1) tea gardens situated in Kamrup, Nowgoug and North Lakhimpur, (2) rest of Assam Valley, and (3) Cachar. The two tea gardens owned by the petitioner were located in the Mikir Hills. They were grouped with the rest of Assam. On the representation made by the petitioner, the Government of Assam by its notification dated 18th October, 1958 appointed a committee under section 5 (1) (a) of the Minimum Wages Act to examine the question of uneconomic gardens of the United North Cachar and Mikir Hills District. While this Com­mittee was collecting data, the Government of Assam by another notification dated 24th November 1950 appointed a General Committee to revise the wage structure and the said Committee gave its recom­mendation which created a new zone: for United North Cachar and Mikir Hills and tagged it with the zone constituting of Nowgong, Kamrup for the pur­pose of minimum wage. The Committee appointed by the Government under its notification dated the 18th October 1958 held its meeting on the 21st March, 1960 and submitted its report. In the mean­time, the Government of India set up a Central Wage Board for tea plantation industry. The Central Wage Board for the tea plantation by its resolution dated December 1960 recommended grant of interim wage increase in respect of Assam. The Central Wage Board, however, did not recommend any increment for the daily rated labourers for Cachar tea gardens. The Deputy Secretary, Government of India in­formed the North Cachar and Mikir Hills gardens that the recommendations of the Central Wage Board are to be implemented by the State Government and it is for them to determine the amounts of wage increase payable in different stages under recom­mendation of the Wage Board. There was a Tripartite Agreement arrived at between the Labour Inspector, Management and the Labour on 29-9-62. The gar­dens in question then approached the Government for consideration of their case. But the Government informed them that it could not accept the recom­mendation of the Minimum Wages Committee for tagging on the United Mikir and North Cachar Hills to the Cachar District for the wages payable in these tea estates. The gar­dens in question then approached the Government for consideration of their case. But the Government informed them that it could not accept the recom­mendation of the Minimum Wages Committee for tagging on the United Mikir and North Cachar Hills to the Cachar District for the wages payable in these tea estates. Thereafter the present petition has been filed challenging the order of the Government for tagging the present gardens with the Nowgong, Kamrup and Goalpara gardens and its refusal to tag the said gardens with the Cachar gardens. (4) The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the notification issued by the Government fixing the minimum wages of the workers of the gar­dens in question without waiting for the report of the Minimum Wages Committee appointed under the notification of 1958 was ultra vires. (5) The relevant provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948-Act XI of 1948 (hereinafter called 'the Act') may be referred to at this stage. Section 3 provides as follows : "3. (1) The appropriate Government shall, in the manner hereinafter provided,- (a) fix the minimum rates of wages payable to employees employed- (i) in an employment specified in Part I of the Schedule at the commencement of this Act, before the 31st day of December, 1959; (ii) in an employment specified in Part II of the Schedule at the commencement of this Act, before the 31st day of December, 1959 : Provided that the appropriate Government may, instead of fixing minimum rates of wages under this sub-clause for the whole State, fix such rates for a part of the State or for any specified class or classes of such employment in the whole State or part thereof; and (iii) in an employment added to Part I or Part II of the Schedule by notification under section 27, before the expiry of one year from the date of the notification; (b) review at such intervals as it may think fit, such intervals not exceeding five years, the minimum rates of wages so fixed and revise the minimum rates, if necessary. Provided that where for any reason the appro­priate Government has not reviewed the minimum rates of wages fixed by it in respect of any scheduled employment within any interval of five years, nothing contained in this clause shall be deemed to prevent it from reviewing the minimum rates after the expiry of the said period of five years and revising them, if necessary, and until they are so revised the minimum rates in force immediately before the expiry of the said period of five years shall continue in force. (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub­section (1), the appropriate Government may refrain from fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled employment in which there are in the whole State less than one thousand employees engag­ed in such employment, but if at any time, whether before or alter the expiry of any time limit specified in sub-section (1), the appropriate Government comes to a finding after such inquiry as it may make or cause to be made in this behalf that the number of employees in any scheduled employment in respect of which it has refrained from fixing minimum rates of wages has risen to one thousand or more, it shall fix minimum rates of wages payable to employees in such employment within one year from the date on which it comes to such finding. (2) The appropriate Government may fix - (a) a minimum rate of wages for time work (here­inafter referred to as 'a minimum time rate'); (b) a minimum rate of wages for piece work (hereinafter referred to as 'a minimum piece rate'); (c) a minimum rate of remuneration to apply in the case of employees employed on piece work for the purpose of securing to such employees a mini­mum rate of wages on a time work basis (hereinafter referred to as 'a guaranteed time rate'); (d) a minimum rate (whether a time rate or a piece rate) to apply in substitution for the minimum rate which would otherwise be applicable, in respect of overtime work done by employees (hereinafter re­ferred to as 'overtime rate'). (3) In fixing or revising minimum rate of wages under this, section,- (a) different minimum rates of wages may be fixed for- (i) different scheduled employments; (ii) different classes of work in the same sche­duled employment; (iii) adults, adolescents, children and apprentices; (iv) different localities; (b) minimum rates of wages may be fixed by any one or more of the following wage periods, namely:- (i) by the hour, (ii) by the day, (iii) by the month, or (iv) by such other larger wage period as may be prescribed; and where such rates are fixed by the day or by the month, the manner of calculating wages for a month or for a clay, as the case may be, may be indicated : Provided that where any wage-periods have been fixed under section 4 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, minimum wages shall be fixed in accordance therewith." Section 5 reads as follows :- "5. (1) In fixing minimum rates of wages in res­pect of any scheduled employment for the first time under this Act or in revising minimum rates of wages so fixed, the appropriate Government shall either- (a) appoint as many committees and sub. com­mittees as it considers necessary to hold enquiries and advise it in respect of such fixation or revision, as the case may be, or (b) by notification in the Official Gazette, publish its proposals for the information of persons likely to be affected thereby and specify a date, not less than two months from the date of the notification, on which the proposals will be taken into consideration. (2) After considering the advice of the committee or committees appointed under clause (a) of sub­section (1), or as the case may be, all representations received by it before the date specified in the notifica­tion under clause (b) of that sub-section, the appro­priate Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix, or, as the case may be, revise the mini­mum rates of wages in respect of each scheduled employment, and unless such notification otherwise provides, it shall come into force on the expiry of three months from the date of its issue : Provided that where the appropriate Government proposes to revise the minimum rates of wages by the mode specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1), the appropriate Government shall consult the Advisory Board also." Section 7 lays down that for the purpose of co­ordinating the work of committees and sub-com­mittees, appointed under section 5 and advising the appropriate Government generally in the matter of fixing and revising minimum rates of wages, the appropriate Government shall appoint an Advisory Board. Section 8 provides that for the purpose of advising the Central and State Governments in the matters of the fixation and revision of minimum rates of wages and other matters under this Act and for co-ordinating the work of the Advisory Boards, the Central Government shall appoint a Central Advisory Board. Section 9 provides for the composition of the committees. (6) Section 3 (1) (b) of the Act gives power to the appropriate Government to review the wages struc­ture at intervals fixed by it, such intervals not exceed­ing five years. Thus the State Government had power to revise the wage structures before the expiry of five years. Section 5 lays down the procedure for fixing and revising the minimum wages. It is open to the appropriate Government, which in the present case will be the State of Assam, to appoint one or a number of committees to hold inquiries and advise in respect of such fixation or revision. The perusal of these sections will show -that the appropriate Government can appoint a number of committees and also can appoint a committee for a particular area and for a particular class of employment. Sub-sec. (2) of section 5 gives power to the State Government by a notification to fix the minimum wages or revise the minimum rates of wages. The perusal of these sections will show -that the appropriate Government can appoint a number of committees and also can appoint a committee for a particular area and for a particular class of employment. Sub-sec. (2) of section 5 gives power to the State Government by a notification to fix the minimum wages or revise the minimum rates of wages. This notification, how­ever, can be issued after considering the advise of the committee or committees appointed under sub-section (1) (a) of section 5 and after considering the repre­sentations received by the appropriate Government against the proposal made by the committee. (7) The contention of the petitioner is that the State Government having appointed a special com­mittee to advise it in the matter of fixation of the wages of the Mikir Hills gardens, could not issue a notification fixing the minimum rate of wages without considering the advice given by the committee and could not act only on the recommendation of the general committee appointed for the revision of the wage structure throughout the State in the tea estates. It is an admitted fact of the present case that the notification fixing the minimum wages was issued by the Government even before the sub-committee ap­pointed under the earlier notification of 1958 could give its report. The contention is that the condition, precedent for the exercise of the power to issue noti­fication revising the minimum wages was not followed in the present case and that the provisions relating to the consideration of the advice given by the com­mittee are mandatory, the breach of which will in­validate the entire notification. (8) On the 18th October 1958 the Governor of Assam issued a notification which is as follows : "No. GLR. 126/58/20 : The Governor of Assam is-pleased to constitute a committee under S. 5 (1) (a) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, to examine the ques­tion of uneconomic gardens of United North Cachar and Mikir Hills District and to recommend remedial measures with the following members: The Labour Commissioner, Assam was appointed its Chairman and there were two other members of the Committee-one of them being the representative of the industry and the other the representative of labour. By another notification dated the 24th November 1959 appearing in the Assam Gazette of 25th November 1959, the Government of Assam revised the minimum rates of wages and fixed certain revised rates of wages. By another notification dated the 24th November 1959 appearing in the Assam Gazette of 25th November 1959, the Government of Assam revised the minimum rates of wages and fixed certain revised rates of wages. This notification was issued on consideration of the report of the Advisory Com­mittee constituted under section 5 (1) (a) of the Act, vide notification dated the 11th November 1959. The Committee which was appointed under the notifica­tion dated the 10th October 1958 submitted its report after holding its final meeting on the 21st March 1960. The Government of India set up a Central Wage Board for tea plantation industries. The said Central Wage Board for the tea plantation industries by its resolution dated December 1960 made a certain recommendation for grant of interim wage increase in respect of Assam. By a unanimous resolution of the Board the tea gardens in Assam Valley were required to give a further wage increment to the minimum wages fixed by the Government by its notification dated the 24th November 1959. The Central Wage Board, however, recommended no increment for the daily rated labourers for Cachar Tea Gardens, nor did it consider the question of separate classification and fixing sepa­rate minimum wage rates for the tea gardens situated within a radius of ten miles of Dimapur in United North Cachar and Mikir Hills District. The petitioner then wrote a letter to the Central Government point­ing out that their gardens either should be classified separately or should be placed in the category of the Cachar tea gardens, so that they may not have to pay any interim increased wages recommended by the Central Wage Board. The Deputy Secretary, Government of India in­formed gardens in North Cachar and Mikir Hills that the recommendations are being implemented through State Government and it is for them to determine the amounts o£ wage increase payable in different stages under recommendation of the Wage Board, and that any matter connected with the implementation of wage increase may therefore be taken up with the Government of Assam if necessary. It was agreed on 29-9-1962 between the Labour Inspector, Manage­ment and Labour that till the representation of the management of these gardens to the State of Assam is decided, the payment will not be-made to the workers. It was agreed on 29-9-1962 between the Labour Inspector, Manage­ment and Labour that till the representation of the management of these gardens to the State of Assam is decided, the payment will not be-made to the workers. The Assam Tea Planters Association and the Management of the gardens approached the State Government but the Government informed the gar­dens that it would not accept the recommendation of the Minimum Wages Committee for tagging on the United Mikir and North Cachar Hills to the Cachar District for the wages payable in these tea estates. It should be pointed out that the Minimum Wages Committee appointed by the Government under noti­fication dated the 18th October 1958 had recom­mended that the gardens of the United North Cachar and Mikir Hills should be grouped with gardens of Cachar and minimum rate of wages fixed for Cachar gardens should be made applicable to them also. This recommendation of the Minimum Wages Com­mittee was not acceptable to the Government and further the Government of Assam pointed out in its reply that the recommendations of the Central Wage Board were irrespective of the economic condition of the gardens. From these facts it will appear that the Government of Assam was not prepared to amend its notification of 24th November 1959 under which the gardens of United North Cachar and Mikir Hills were tagged on to the Nowgang area and to accept the recommendation of the Minimum Wages Com­mittee appointed under its notification of the 18th October 1958. (9) It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that under S. 5 (2) of the Act the minimum wages could not be revised without taking into considera­tion the report of the Minimum Wages Committee appointed. Mr. Choudhury who appears for the petitioner has referred to the following passage in 'Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes', Eleventh Edi­tion at page 364 : "A strong line of distinction may be drawn between cases where the prescriptions of the Act affect the performance of a duty and where they relate to a privilege or power. Where powers, rights or immuni­ties are granted with a direction that certain regula­tions, formalities or conditions shall be complied with, it seems neither unjust nor inconvenient to exact a rigorous observance of them as essential to the acquisition of the right or authority conferred, and it is therefore probable that such was the intention of the legislature. Where powers, rights or immuni­ties are granted with a direction that certain regula­tions, formalities or conditions shall be complied with, it seems neither unjust nor inconvenient to exact a rigorous observance of them as essential to the acquisition of the right or authority conferred, and it is therefore probable that such was the intention of the legislature. But when a public duty is imposed and the statute requires that it should be performed in a certain manner, or within a certain time, or under other specified conditions, such prescriptions may well be regarded as intended to be directory only in cases when injustice or inconvenience to others who have no control over those exercising the duty would result if such requirements were essential and im­perative." He submits that as section 5 confers a power on the State Government to fix or to revise the minimum wages of the tea gardens, the procedure provided for the exercise of such a power must be deemed to be mandatory. He further contends that on the plain reading of section 5 (2) of the Act the power to issue notifications revising the minimum wages is condi­tioned by the consideration' of the advice of the com­mittee or committees. In the notification of the 24th November, 1959 it is expressly mentioned that the Government on the advice of the committee appointed Under the notification of the 11th November, Iu59 has revised the wage structure of the tea estates workers. It does not refer to the advice of the committee appointed under the notification of the 18th October, 1958. In fact it could not, because the committee sub­mits its report in 1960. In our opinion section 5 (2) of the Act clearly lays down that the condition precedent for the issue of the notification fixing or revising the minimum rates of wages is the considera­tion of the advice given by a committee or all the committees appointed by the State Government under section 5 (1) (a). It is true that the State Government in its reply to the petitioner has stated that it is not prepared to accept the recommendations of that com­mittee. But the notification issued on the 24th Novem­ber, 1959 suiters from the infirmity that the report of the committee was not considered by the Government before issuing the said notification. (10) Mr. It is true that the State Government in its reply to the petitioner has stated that it is not prepared to accept the recommendations of that com­mittee. But the notification issued on the 24th Novem­ber, 1959 suiters from the infirmity that the report of the committee was not considered by the Government before issuing the said notification. (10) Mr. Choudhury has also referred to 'Farwell on Powers', 3rd Edition, 1916, Chanter VII, S. 12, p. 394 in which the law has been summarised as follows :- 'If the Legislature has authorised certain acts to be done in a particular way, it is difficult to see how the Court can give any validity to any such act if done otherwise than in accordance with the statutory re­quirements; to give relief in such a case would be to legislate afresh." (11) At this stage some of the cases cited at the Bar may also be considered. (12) Reference may be made to case of 'Ram Mohan Basu v. State of West Bengal reported in 61 Gal W N 779. The High Court in that case considered the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act enjoins upon the transport authorities to consider the representation made by the petitioner before granting a permit and as the Re­gional Transport Authorities passed resolutions with­out considering the representation under section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the resolution was held to be void and not enforceable. (13) Mr. Chaudhury has then referred to the case of Vasudevan v. State of Kerala, reported in AIR 1960 Ker 67 . In this case the validity of a notification issued by the Government under section 5 (1) (b) of the Act was challenged by the petitioner and it was held that the provisions of section 5 were mandatory and that any breach of the conditions on the existence of which the notification could be issued under section 5 (2) of the Act will render the notification void. (14) Reference was then made to the case of M/s. Bhikusa Yamasa Kshatriya v. Sangamner Akola Taluka Bidi Kamgar Union reported in AIR 1963 S.C. 806 . This case only lays down that the provisions of S.3 (3)(iv) of the Act do not contravene Articles 19 and 14 of the Constitution, nor are the provisions hit by the rule of excessive delegation of legislative powers. This case only lays down that the provisions of S.3 (3)(iv) of the Act do not contravene Articles 19 and 14 of the Constitution, nor are the provisions hit by the rule of excessive delegation of legislative powers. This case has been cited for the purpose of showing that the Act gives full power to the Government to fix different rates of minimum wages for different locali­ties and to appoint committees for the purpose of advising about the fixation of the minimum wages of different localities. (15) As we have already pointed out earlier, the ,j language of section 5 (2) of the Act is clear and that it was not open to the Government to fix minimum wages without taking into consideration the recom­mendation of the committee appointed under its (notification of the 18th October, 1958. (16) The counsel for the State very strenuously contended that the petition should be rejected as it is a belated one. The notification which is sought to be challenged is dated the 24th November 1959 and the present petition was filed on the 12th September 1963. The Committee appointed under the notification of the 18th October 1058 submitted its recommendation on the 21st March I960. The Assam Government by its letter dated 20th June 1962 demanded implementation of the interim increment recommended by the Central Wage Board. On the 11th August 1962 the Assam Tea Planters Association wrote to the Govern­ment to consider the difficulties of the Mikir Hill gardens and to implement the recommendation of the Special Committee made on the 21st March I960. By the letter dated the 25th September 1962 the Govern­ment refused to consider the representation made by petitioner and by another letter dated the 8th April 1963 the Government demanded implementation of the interim increase in the minimum wages. The petition is filed in this court in September 1963. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that there was any laches on the part of the petitioner to come to this court and that it is a case where this court would refuse to exercise its prerogative powers under Article 226 of the (Constitution. The petition is filed in this court in September 1963. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that there was any laches on the part of the petitioner to come to this court and that it is a case where this court would refuse to exercise its prerogative powers under Article 226 of the (Constitution. (17) The petitioners have prayed that the opposite parties be directed to accept the recommendations of the second Minimum Wages Committee made at its meeting held on the 21st March, 1960 and to exempt the gardens from implementing the Central Wage Board Interim Wage ^Increment resolution as in the case of Cachar gardens. In proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution the opposite parties cannot be directed to accept the recommendations of the second Minimum Wages Committee. As we have held that the revision of the minimum wages without considering the recommendation of the Committee appointed under the notification dated the 18th Octo­ber 1958 is ultra vires, the only relief which the peti­tioners can be given is to direct the Government not to give effect to the notification of the 24th November 1959 and to act after taking into consideration the report of the Committee appointed by its notification dated the 18th October 1958. As the minimum wages fixed under the notification of the 24th November 1959 have been set aside by us, the interim relief granted by the Central Wage Board cannot be given effect to till a proper notification by the State Govern­ment revising the wage structure is issued after considering the report of the Minimum Wages Com­mittee appointed under the notification of the 18th October 1958. (18) In the result, therefore, we allow these peti­tions in so far that we issue a mandamus to the Government not to give effect to the notification of the 24th November 1959 and to act after taking into consideration the report of the Committee appointed by its notification dated the 18th October, 1958. Petitions allowed.