GOSWAMI, J.:- This Is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against the two notifica­tions of the State Government promul­gated under the Minimum Wages Act (Act XI of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. The first impugned notification was published in the Assam Gazette on 22nd June, 1966 and it will be useful to quote the same in extenso: "Shillong, Wednesday, June 22, 19(56. 1st Asadha, 1888, S. E. The 8th June, 1966. No. GLR. 634/65/15. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 (1) (a) read with Section 5 (1) (b) of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 (Act XI of 1948), as amended, the Governor of Assam ib pleased to publish the following proposed minimum rates of wages to be fixed in respect of the employment in Biri Mak­ing Industry in the whole State of Assam. Any objection, comment or criticism in this respect is invited and may be re­ceived by the Government for conside­ration on or before 20th August 1966. SCHEDULE Serial No. Category of employees. All inclusive minimum rates Of wages A. 1 1. Bidi Maker Rs. 2.75 per 1000 bidies 2. Checker Rs. 75 per month 3. Toaster Rs. 75 per month 4 Packer Rs. 75 per month 5. Cleaner Rs. 75 per month 6. Clerk (Non-Matric) Rs. 100 per month 7. Clerk (Matriculate) ...... Rs. 125 per month The above rates are inclusive of the payment of weekly off day and no sepa­rate payment would be necessary on this account. The daily wages of the workers should be calculated by dividing the monthly wage by twenty-six. The above daily rates shall be payable without affecting existing tasks and hours of works. * * * * * The second impugned notification was published in the Assam Gazette of October, 12, 1966, and may also be set out: "No. 41. Shillong, Wednesday, October 12, 1966, 20th Aswina, 1888, S. E. The 28th September, 1966. No.GLR.634/65/25. The above daily rates shall be payable without affecting existing tasks and hours of works. * * * * * The second impugned notification was published in the Assam Gazette of October, 12, 1966, and may also be set out: "No. 41. Shillong, Wednesday, October 12, 1966, 20th Aswina, 1888, S. E. The 28th September, 1966. No.GLR.634/65/25. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Act XI of 1948), the Governor of Assam is pleased to fix the following rates of Minimum Wages the same having been previously published with Notifica­tion No.GLR.634/65/15 dated the 8th June 1966, as required under Clause (b) of sub­section (1) of the said section in respect of the employment in Biri Making In­dustry in the whole State of Assam which shall take effect from the date of publication of this Notification. SCHEDULE Serial No. Category of employee. All inclusive minimum rates of wages A 1. Bidi Maker Rs. 2.75p. (Rupees Two and seventy. five paise) only per 1,000 Bidis. 2. Checker 3. Toaster Rs 75.00 (Rupees Seventy-five) 4. Packer per month. 5. Cleaner 6. Clerk (Non-Matrio) Rs. 100,00 (Rupees one hundred) per month. 7. Clerk (Matriculate) Rs. 125.00 y Rupees one hundred twenty-five) per month. B. The above rates are Inclusive of the payment of weekly off day and no Separate payment would be necessary on this account. C. The daily wages of the Workers should be calculated by dividing the monthly wage by twenty-six. The above daily rates shall be payable without affecting existing tasks and hours of works." 3. Briefly, the facts are that the Gov­ernment intended to prescribe Minimum Wages for Bidi Manufactory which is a scheduled employment as enumerated in the Act. It is not disputed by Mr. Sen, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Bidi Manufactory is a scheduled em­ployment. That being the position, it is stated by the petitioner that the Govern­ment intended to fix the minimum rates of wages for this industry and with that end in view, wanted to take action under Section 5 (1) (a) of the Act and indeed by letter dated 12th August. 1965. (Annexure D). asked the petitioner Associa­tion to send names of their representa­tives to serve -in a committee which will be set up by the Government under Sec­tion 5 (1) (a) of the Act. 1965. (Annexure D). asked the petitioner Associa­tion to send names of their representa­tives to serve -in a committee which will be set up by the Government under Sec­tion 5 (1) (a) of the Act. In pursuance of such a notice from the Government, the petitioner also conveyed their will­ingness to co-operate and submit names of representatives to be included in such a committee, by their letter dated 28th 'August. 1965 (Annexure E). The peti­tioner's case is that the Government after some time gave a complete go-by to this Intention of theirs and published the first notification (Annexure G) dated 8th June, 1966, whereby they changed their mind and published various proposed minimum rates of wages for this industry in the Assam Gazette and called for represen­tations on or before 20th August, 1966. The petitioner having seen this notifi­cation immediately reacted to the pro­posal by their letter dated 9th July, 1966, (Annexure H). and raised objection to Government's changing their intention in that behalf. The petitioner claimed that the only reasonable way in the circum­stances to fix the minimum rates of wages was to constitute a committee under Sec­tion 5 (1) (a) of the Act and to fix the minimum wages thereafter under Section 5 (2) after considering the advice of the committee. Although it would have been expected that the Government would reply to this letter, the same, however, remained unheeded. Instead, the Gov­ernment came in with the impugned notification dated 28th September, 1966, (Annexure I), published in the Assam Gazette on October 12, 1966, which has already been quoted above. Mr. Sen, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, raises various questions objecting to these noti­fications and to the wages which are noti­fied in the final notification. It is not necessary to take all those points into consideration, as will be noticed present­ly, the controversy may be disposed of by a reference to Section 5 (1) (b) and Section 5 (2) of the Act. 4. Mr. Sen's argument in this context is that the notification dated 8th June, 1966, published on 22nd June, 1966, is not in conformity with Section 5 (1) (b) of the Act. 4. Mr. Sen's argument in this context is that the notification dated 8th June, 1966, published on 22nd June, 1966, is not in conformity with Section 5 (1) (b) of the Act. We have, therefore, to read Section 5 of the Act, which is 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 sub-sec. (1). or as the case may be, all representations received by it before the date specified in the noti­fication under Clause (b) of that sub­section, 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 Keeping the provisions of Section 5 in the forefront, Mr. Sen submits that the notification under Section 5 (1) (b) giv­ing the dates for submission of objec­tions on or before 20th August, 1966. is bad in law inasmuch as the requirement, which is mentioned in Section 5 (1) (b), that "not less than two months" from the date of the notification should be given for the purpose, has been flagrantly disobeyed. The learned Senior Govern­ment Advocate appearing for the oppo­site party, submits that although the notice has been published In the Assam Gazette on June 22, 1966, the date of the notification is 8th June. 1966. The learned Senior Govern­ment Advocate appearing for the oppo­site party, submits that although the notice has been published In the Assam Gazette on June 22, 1966, the date of the notification is 8th June. 1966. He re­lies on the expression "the date of the notification" mentioned in Section 5(1 )(b) and submits that all that the law con­templates is that "not less than two months' time" should be counted from the date of the notification and not from the date of the publication of the same in the Assam Gazette. In order to appreciate the rival sub­missions in this behalf, it is necessary to remember that the object of the Mini­mum Wages legislation is to fix minimum rates of wages for the scheduled indus­try and in that behalf these wage legisla­tions are more or less reasonable restric­tions imposed in the way of the em­ployers in conducting their business. In this view of the matter, an elaborate pro­cedure has been prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, which has got to be strictly complied with before Mini­mum Wages of this description are fixed. It is noteworthy that if the employer, who is under legal obligation to pay the prescribed Minimum Wages to his em­ployees in accordance with the provisions of the Act, disobeys these directions, he can be prosecuted under the law. It is, therefore, clearly necessary that the Gov­ernment in making these notifications, for prescribing the wages under the Act, punctiliously follows the letter of the law and strictly complies with all the proce­dure laid down in the Act. 5. The learned Senior Government Advocate next contends that the two months should be counted in days and the notification being published on the 60th day is not invalid in law. Unfortu­nately, however, the words used in the notification are "not less than two months" from the date of the notifica­tion. "Month" under Section 3 (35) of the General Clauses Act, shall mean a month reckoned according to the British calendar. In that view of the matter, the two months must be calculated from 22nd June, 1966, the date of the publi­cation, which should be reckoned as the date of the notification within the mean­ing of the expression under Section 5 (1) (b). In that view of the matter, the two months must be calculated from 22nd June, 1966, the date of the publi­cation, which should be reckoned as the date of the notification within the mean­ing of the expression under Section 5 (1) (b). In the notification, this date is there­fore clearly deficient by one day, and it does not fulfill the requirement of not being less than two months from the date of the notification. Serious objec­tions could be made by those people who wanted to represent even on the last day If they so wished. Another striking fac­tor in this case is that apart from the final notification dated October 12, 1966, we do not find anything on records that representations were received by the Government which they had the oppor­tunity to consider. It is perhaps for this reason that the filial notification does not show that the Government had considered the repre­sentations received. The notification is absolutely silent on the point and does not speak about consideration being given to any representation in this behalf. Sec­tion 5 (2) of the Act, as is noticed earlier requires the Government to take into consideration the representations received by them before the date specified in the notification under Section 5(1) (b). Even in this view of the matter, the notifica­tion shows a patent infirmity. We are clearly of the opinion that the notifica­tions of the State Government (Annexures G and I) are invalid in law in­asmuch as they have not followed the procedure laid down under Sections 5(1) (b) and 5 (2) of the Act, and in that view of the matter, these notifications are lia­ble to be quashed in exercise of our powers under Article 226 of the Consti­tution, and which we hereby do. It will be open to the State Government, if they so desire, either to invoke Section 5 (i) (a) or 5 (1) (b), as the case may be, and then take into consideration all relevant matters, as may be applicable, in con­formity with section 5 (2) of the Act be­fore they come out with a notification prescribing minimum rates of wages for the scheduled industry. 6. The application is accordingly al­lowed. The impugned notifications No. GLR.634/65/15 dated 8th June, 1966 and No. GLR.634/65/25 dated 28th September, 1966, are hereby quashed. There will be no order as to costs, Petition allowed.