ORDER Satish Chandra, J. - On August 5, 1968, the State Government issued a notification under S. 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of the various categories of employees of hotels and restaurant. The petitioner, which runs a restaurant at Lucknow, challenges the validity of this notification on the following grounds:- (1) That the Advisory Board was not constituted in accordance with the Act. Its recommendations were invalid. (2) That the notification in so far as it prescribes the time-scale of pay goes beyond the purview of the Act. (3) That the notification violates Article 14 of the Constitution. (4) That the fixation of minimum wage rates is vague and unworkable. 2. Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, authorises the appropriate Government to fix the minimum rates of wages payable to employees employed in an employment specified in the Schedule to the Act. Section 5 lays down the procedure for fixing minimum wages. One method is to appoint committees to hold enquiries and advise the Government in respect of such fixation. The other is the notification method. The Government is to publish its proposals in the Gazette and invite (representations?) After considering them, the Govt, can, by a notification in the Gazette, fix the minimum rates of wages; provided that, where the Govt, proposes to fix the wages by the notification method, it has to consult the Advisory Board also. Section 8 provides that for the purpose of advising the appropriate Government in this matter, the Government shall appoint an advisory board. The advisory board is to consist of persons, to be nominated by the Government representing the employers and employees in the scheduled employments, who shall be equal in number. In addition, independent persons, not exceeding one-third of the total strength of the Board, have also to be nominated. One such independent person is to be appointed the Chairman of the Board. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Act envisages the consultation with the Advisory Board, in order to prevent the State Government from acting arbitrarily and to have the views of the employers and the employees of the particular industrial employment for which the minimum rates of wages are going to be fixed. The Act, therefore, requires the representative of all scheduled employments to be members of the Advisory Board. The Act, therefore, requires the representative of all scheduled employments to be members of the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board constituted by the State Government did not consist of any member representing the hotel and restaurant industry. The Board was thus illegally constituted. Any recommendation made by it was not valid. There are more than one answers to this submission. 4. In Bhikusa Yamasa Kshatriya v. Sangamner Akola Taluka Bidi Kamgar Union, A.I.R. 1963 SC 806 para 8, it was argued before the Supreme Court that on the Advisory Board, there was no representative of the employers in the Bidi industry, The Supreme Court negatived the point. It held that the function of the Advisory Board was to co-ordinate the work of the committees and sub-committees and to advise the Government generally in the matter of fixing and revising minimum rates. The function of the Board was not to make any detailed investigation in any particular industry. It was held that the Act does not require that the Board should consist of representatives of any particular scheduled industry. This decision, therefore, is a declaration of the law on the point that the Advisory Board need not consist of representatives of every scheduled employment. It was hence not necessary that a representative of the employers in the hotel and restaurant industry should have been a member of the Advisory Board. 5. In Edward Mills Co. Ltd, v. State of Ajmer, A.I.R. 1955 SC 25 para 18, the Supreme Court held that the committee appointed under Section 5 of the Act is only an advisory body, and the Government is not bound to accept any of its recommendations. The proviso to Section 5 of the Act requires the State Government to consult the Advisory Board before fixing the minimum rates of wages. The Government is not bound to accept the advice of the Board. Consequently, any procedural irregularity in the constitution of the Board would not invalidate the notification issued by the Government, fixing the minimum rates of wages. There is thus no substance in the first point. 6. The second point was that the Act permits the fixation of a minimum rate of wages, and not a time-scale of wages, This submission is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Workmen of Messrs. Indian Turpentine and Rosin Co. Lid. v. Messrs. Indian Turpentine and Rosin Co. There is thus no substance in the first point. 6. The second point was that the Act permits the fixation of a minimum rate of wages, and not a time-scale of wages, This submission is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Workmen of Messrs. Indian Turpentine and Rosin Co. Lid. v. Messrs. Indian Turpentine and Rosin Co. Ltd., A.I.R. 1961 SC 1365. In that case, the Supreme Court reiterated its decision in Express Newspapers Ltd, v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1958 SC 578 in which it had been observed (at p. 603) that the phrase "rates of wages" means the manner, mode or standard of payment of remuneration for work c(one, whether at the start or in the subsequent stages. The "rates of wages" would thus include the "scales of wages", and there is no antithesis between the two expressions. The scales of wages are comprised in the large connotation of the expression "rates of wages". Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act authorises the State Government to prescribe the minimum rates of wages. This will include prescribing the time-scale of wages. 7. The next submission of the learned counsel was based on violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, It was urged that the impugned notification classifies the fixation of minimum wages of various categories of employees on the footing of the number of employees as well as the area where the individual hotel or restaurant was situate. This will include prescribing the time-scales. 8. Section 3 (3) (a) of the Act provides that for fixing and revisi ng minimum rates of wages, different rates may be fixed for- (i) Different scheduled employments; (ii) Different classes of workmen in the same scheduled employment; (iii) Adults, adolescents, children and apprentices; (iv) Different localities. It will thus be seen that different rates of wages can be fixed for different localities. The Act specifically authorises it. The learned counsel did not attack the validity of this provision in the Act. The notification, therefore, cannot be held violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 9. The impugned notification classifies hotels and restaurants into three categories. One category is of hotel and restaurants employing ten or more persons and situate in 'Kaval' towns, the municipal and cantonment areas of Bareilly, Meerut, Dehra Dun, Hardwar, Mussoorie and Nainital. For this category of hotels and restaurants, a higher rate has been fixed. 9. The impugned notification classifies hotels and restaurants into three categories. One category is of hotel and restaurants employing ten or more persons and situate in 'Kaval' towns, the municipal and cantonment areas of Bareilly, Meerut, Dehra Dun, Hardwar, Mussoorie and Nainital. For this category of hotels and restaurants, a higher rate has been fixed. For instance, unskilled employees in such establishments are to be paid a sum of Rs. 70 per month as the minimum wage. The second category is of hotels and restaurants employing less than 10 persons situate in the areas mentioned in the first category, and also all hotels and restaurants situate in any Municipal, Cantonment, Town or Notified Areas. For this category, the minimum wage for an unskilled employees is Rs. 65 per month. The third category is of hotels and restaurants situate in areas other than those mentioned in categories 1 and 2. For this third category a still lower rate has been fixed. An unkilled employee in this category of hotels and restaurants is to be paid a sum of Rs, 60 as the minimum wage. 10. The respondents have stated that the Central Advisory Board in April, 1954, recommended to all the State Governments to examine the possibility of fixing minimum wages for the employment of hotels and restaurants. The State Government accordingly conducted a sample survey of the conditions of working and prevailing wage rates in this employment, by sending a .questionnaire to about 323 establishments throughout the State. After considering their representations and answers, the State Government issued a notification in the Official Gazette dated 19th October, 1967', proposing the minimum wage rates for this employment. It invited objections and representations. The Government also consulted the Wage Board. The Wage Board approved of the Government's proposals. Thereafter, on 5th August, 1968, the impugned notification was issued. 11. In prescribing the minimum wage rates, several factors nave to be considered, e. g., the paying capacity of the employment, the size of each unit, etc. The Government could well have thought that a hotel and restaurant employing more than ten persons was financially better-off. Its paying capacity would be better than a smaller units. The classification was thus based on an intelligible differentia, which has a rational relation to the object of the Act, namely, to prevent the exploitation of the workmen and to avoid hardship to the employers. Its paying capacity would be better than a smaller units. The classification was thus based on an intelligible differentia, which has a rational relation to the object of the Act, namely, to prevent the exploitation of the workmen and to avoid hardship to the employers. It cannot be said that the classification based upon the number of employees in a unit violated Article 14 of the Constitution. 12. In this connection, it was also submitted that Section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act, which authorises the State Government to add any employment in the Schedule, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, because this provision confers an arbitrary and unguided discretion on the State Governments. I am unable to agree. Section 27 states : "27. The appropriate Government, after giving by a notification in the official Gazette not less than three months' notice of its intention so to do, may, by like notification, add to either part of the Schedule any employment in respect of which it is of opinion that minimum rates of wages should be fixed under this Act and thereupon the Schedule shall in its application to the State be deemed to be amended accordingly." It will be seen that the State Government can add a particular employment to the Schedule after satisfying two conditions. Firstly, it has to notify its intention of doing so. This provision evidently has been made to enable the persons concerned to make representations to the State Government. The Government is expected to act after considering the objections or representations received by it. The provision is, therefore, reasonable. Secondly, the power can be exercised only if the Government is of the opinion that the minimum rates of wages should be fixed for the particular employment. The discretion conferred on the State Government by Section 27 is, therefore, conditional. The section has laid down the policy or the standard for the exercise of the power conferred by it. It cannot be said that Section 27 confers an arbitrary or uncanalised power on the State Government. 13. The last point submitted on behalf of the petitioner was that the impugned notification is vague and unworkable. It was urged that the notification fixes the rates of wages for unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled I and skilled II categories of employees. It cannot be said that Section 27 confers an arbitrary or uncanalised power on the State Government. 13. The last point submitted on behalf of the petitioner was that the impugned notification is vague and unworkable. It was urged that the notification fixes the rates of wages for unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled I and skilled II categories of employees. Cooks have been placed in skilled II category, whereas Head Cooks, Halwais, etc., have been put in skilled I category. The notification does not define the duties, with reference to which it may be possible to judge whether a particular employee is a cook or a head cook. In other words, the notification does not provide for fitment of the employees for the purpose of fixing their individual (sic) does not clarify whether tip money or food which may be given to a particular employee would be adjustable against the prescribed wages. This objection has no merit. The notification expressly provides that "the wage rates are exclusive of any tip money that may be given to any employee or employees voluntarily." This provision necessarily implies that other amenities or benefits that may be given to the employees are not to be excluded. In other words, they will be taken into consideration while paying a particular employee the cash wages. The question of fitment also does not present much difficulty. It depends upon an individual establishment. Where it has the post of a Head Cook, the other cooks will be assistant cooks or cooks. There will be no difficulty in finding out as to which category they belong in order to prescribe the minimum rates of wages for them. Moreover, even if some difficulty arises at some level, it can easily be resolved by getting the matter referred and adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunals or Labour Courts. The notification does not present any insuperable difficulty in working out its provisions. 14. The various points urged in support of the writ petition having failed, the same is dismissed with costs.