JUDGMENT V. Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. This writ petition has been brought by the owners of five industrial establishments engaged in the Saw Mill Industry and the relief sought by them is the quashing of the notification Ext. P-7 dated the 3rd August, 1970 issued by the State Government in the exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 (1) (b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred, to in short as the Act) read with sub-section (2) of section 5 of the said Act revising the minimum wages which had been originally fixed in respect of persons employed in the timber and plywood industries in the State. The earlier fixation in respect of timber industry was under a notification dated the 22nd August, 1959 evidenced by Ext. P-1. The prior fixation in respect of the plywood industry had been made as per the notification Ext. P-2 dated the 12th July, 1962. The impugned notification Ext. P-7 shows that the revised fixation had been effected by the Government after considering the advice of a committee appointed by it under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act. 2. The first ground urged by the petitioners in support of their challenge against the impugned notification is that the committee under whose advice the State Government has effected the refixation of the minimum rates of wages was not a validly constituted body since its composition was not in accordance with the provisions contained in section 9 of the Act. The argument on behalf of the petitioners is that as against only two representatives of employers engaged in the saw mill industry there were three persons on the committee representing the employees in the said scheduled employment and that this constituted a clear violation of the terms of section 9 of the Act. Ext. P-6 is a copy of the notification dated 30th November 1967 whereby the Government appointed the committee to hold enquiries and advise it in respect of the revision of minimum rates of wages fixed in respect of employments in timber and plywood industries. The committee consisted of four representatives of employers and an equal number of representatives of employees and also a retired judicial officer as independent member. The committee consisted of four representatives of employers and an equal number of representatives of employees and also a retired judicial officer as independent member. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that under sections 5 and 9 of the Act it is obligatory on the part of the Government to constitute separate committees in respect of each of the scheduled employments for which a fixation or revision of minimum wage is proposed to be made and that the composition of the committees should be such as to give equal representation to employers and employees in each particular scheduled employment. According to the petitioners the Government acted illegally in constituting a composite committee for advising it in the matter of revision of the minimum rates of wages in respect of both the timber industry as well as the plywood industry which are two distinct scheduled employments. It is also contended that even if it is assumed that it is permissible to constitute a composite committee, such committee should consist of equal numbers of representatives of the management and the employees engaged in each one of the scheduled employments. 3. Before I proceed to examine the validity of these contentions it is necessary to extract in full sections 5 and 9 of the Act. They are in the following terms: "5.Procedure for fixing and revising minimum wages.”(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 inquiries 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-section (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 subjection (1), the appropriate Government shall consult the Advisory Board also. 9. Composition of committee, etc.-Each of the committees, sub-committees and the Advisory Board shall consist of persons to be nominated by the appropriate Government representing employers and employees in the scheduled employments, who shall be equal in number, and independent persons not exceeding one third of its total number of members; one of such independent persons shall be appointed the Chairman by the appropriate Government. 4. On a plain reading of section 5 it appears to me that the scheme of the Act is to leave it to the discretion of the Government to decide whether separate committees should be appointed in respect of each one of the scheduled employments or whether it would be sufficient to have a single committee to advise them in the matter of fixation of minimum wages for more than one scheduled employment. The wording used in clause (a) of the section admits of only such a construction since the Government is empowered to appoint as many committees and sub-committees "as it considers necessary". Thus the legislature has clearly invested the Government with full freedom to decide how many committees or sub-committees should be appointed for advising it in respect of the fixation or revision of the minimum rates of wages in respect of the scheduled employments. 5. In this context it is relevant to notice that section 7 contemplates the constitution of only one advisory board in respect of the scheduled employments. 5. In this context it is relevant to notice that section 7 contemplates the constitution of only one advisory board in respect of the scheduled employments. In the matter of effecting the revision of rates of minimum wages section 5 has given a choice to the Government either to appoint committees under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of that section or to publish its proposals for the information of persons likely to be affected and consider all representations that may be received after consulting the advisory board. As already pointed out, the constitution of more than one advisory board is not contemplated under the Act. The provision contained in section 9 regarding the composition of the advisory board and the committees to be constituted under section 5 (1) (a) is identical. Thus it is seen on a survey of all these material provisions in the Act that the petitioners contention that there is a mandatory obligation on the part of the State Government to constitute separate committees in respect of each of the scheduled employments for which a revision of the minimum wage is proposed, is not supported either by the wording of clause (a) of section 5 or by the general scheme of the Act as can be gathered from sections 5, 7 and 9. 6. I shall now pass on to consider the next contention urged by the petitioners, namely that even if the appointment of a single committee in respect of more than one scheduled employment is permissible under section 5 (a), such a committee should consist of equal numbers of representatives of employers as well as employees engaged in each one of the scheduled employments. It is in this context that the fact that the provision contained in section 9 regarding the composition of the committees, sub-committees and the advisory board is identical assumes significance. What is laid down in section 9 is that these bodies shall consist of members nominated by the appropriate Government representing employers and employees in the scheduled employments, who shall be equal in number, besides independent persons not exceeding one-third of its total number of members. What is laid down in section 9 is that these bodies shall consist of members nominated by the appropriate Government representing employers and employees in the scheduled employments, who shall be equal in number, besides independent persons not exceeding one-third of its total number of members. Taking the case of the advisory board there can be no doubt that it is not contemplated by the section that it should consist of representatives of the employers engaged in each and every one of the various scheduled employments listed in Schedule I. If the contention advanced by the petitioner were to be upheld in respect of the committee, that principle must apply equally to the advisory board also and the result would be to hold that the advisory board constituted under section 7 should consist of persons representing employers engaged in each and every one of the various employments mentioned in Part I of the Schedule and also an equal number of representatives of employees engaged in all those employments. There is nothing in the wording of the section which warrants such a construction. On this question relating to the constitution of the advisory board we have a direct decision of the Supreme Court in Bhikusa Yamasa Kshatriya and another v. Sangamner Akola Taluka Bidi Kamgar Union and others 1962 (II) L.L.J. 736 .wherein Their Lordships have held that the Act does not require that the advisory board should consist of representatives of any particular scheduled industry. In my opinion, the same construction should hold good in respect of the composition of the committees constituted under section 5 (1) (a) also, since that subject is also governed by the, identical provision contained in section 9 of the Act. 7. Even if it were to be assumed for the purpose of argument that the petitioners are right in contending that the composition of the committee should be such as to consist of equal number of representatives of the employers and the employees engaged in the saw mill industry, it is not possible on the materials placed before this court to hold that the said principle has been violated by the State Government in appointing the committee constituted under, Ext. P-6. What is argued by the petitioners is that besides the persons mentioned in Ext. P-6. What is argued by the petitioners is that besides the persons mentioned in Ext. P-6 as Nos.1 and 4 who are shown as President and Secretary of the Saw Mill Workers Union in Quilon, Sri P. K. Sankaran Kutty mentioned as No. 3 is also a representative of persons employed in the saw mill industry. This allegation is strongly refuted by the counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and also by the Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State. According to them Sri Sankaran Kutty represents the employees in the plywood industry and not the saw mill industry. It was also submitted by the Government Pleader that the said individual is connected with the Hind Mazdoor Sabha and he cannot be regarded as a representative of the saw mill industry because the said labour union has very much to do with the plywood industry as well. In the face of these conflicting versions on this pure question of fact, it is not possible for this court to uphold the petitioners contention that the alleged principle of equal representation for employers and employees of the particular scheduled industry has been violated by the State Government in constituting the committee as per the notification Ext. P-6. 8. The next point put forward by the petitioners counsel is that what the Government have really done under Ext. P-7 is not the fixation of minimum wage but of fair wage and that this was beyond its competence. This contention was sought to be supported by relying on Exts. P-3, P-4, P-5 and P-5 (a) which are copies of certain conciliation settlements entered into between the managements and the workmen of some saw mill establishment between 1961 and 1968. Excepting for the production of these memoranda of settlement the petitioners have not adduced any order evidencing to show under what circumstances those settlements came to be entered into. Without such evidence it is not possible to determine whether what was agreed to in those settlements can be regarded as a reliable index of the prevailing wage conditions in the particular industry in the concerned locality at the relevant time. Without such evidence it is not possible to determine whether what was agreed to in those settlements can be regarded as a reliable index of the prevailing wage conditions in the particular industry in the concerned locality at the relevant time. Moreover, these very documents disclose that there was a progressive increase of the agreed rates of wages between 1961 and 1968 which is only quite natural having regard to , the steady rise in the cost of living that has taken place throughout the country during the period. 9. The impugned notification, Ext. P-7, revising the minimum rates of wages in respect of various categories of workmen employed in the two industries was issued by the State Government in August, 1970. Merely because some of the rates fixed in Ext. P-7 are higher than the wage rates which are seen to have been agreed upon in the conciliation settlements evidenced by Exts. P-3 to P-5 (a), it cannot be said that what has been fixed by the Government as the minimum wage for the industry is not reasonable. 10. The next ground of attack levelled by the petitioners against the impugned notification is that the Government have acted illegally in making a categorisation of the workmen in the manner in which it has been done under Ext. P-7 by classifying them as highly skilled, skilled and semi-skilled employees. The petitioners rely on the fact that in the previous fixation of minimum rates of wages effected as per Ext. P-1 the only categorisation of employees in the timber industry which has been adopted was the one based on sex. It is contended that there was no material whatever before the State Government warranting the introduction of the three-fold categorisation which has been made under Ext. P-7. This argument was met by counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents by pointing out that the subject of categorisation has been elaborately discussed in the report submitted to Government by the committee. Although the petitioner has not produced a copy of the said report as an exhibit in the case, the learned Government Pleader appearing in the case made a copy of the said report available for my perusal. Although the petitioner has not produced a copy of the said report as an exhibit in the case, the learned Government Pleader appearing in the case made a copy of the said report available for my perusal. On going through the said report it is seen that the committee has dwelt at length with the various relevant aspects relating to the categorisation of workmen and that it is after a detailed discussion of all those aspects that it has recorded the conclusion that a three-fold categorisation of employees as unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled was called for. It is clear from the report of the committee that the committee has arrived at its conclusions on the basis of the replies received by it in response to the questionnaires it had sent out and also on the oral evidence given before it by the representatives of the various managements as well as of the employees in the industry. Hence there is no substance in the petitioners contention that the categorisation effected by the Government was not based on any material and was therefore arbitrary. 11. Another point that was put forward on behalf of the petitioners was that in the final notification issued by the State Government as per Ext. P-7 the Government have slightly deviated from the proposals made by the committee in the matter of effecting the classification. It is no doubt true that in the final notification Ext. P-7 the Government has deviated from the committee's recommendations to the extent of bifurcating the skilled category into "highly skilled" and "skilled" workmen. It is contended by the petitioners that this deviation from the committees recommendation was done by the Government arbitrarily. In the counter-affidavit filed in the case on behalf of the State Government it has been explained that after receipt of the committee's report the Government had referred the matter to the State Advisory Board and that it was on the basis of the advice tendered by the Advisory Board that the Government decided to add the 4th category, namely "highly skilled workmen". It cannot be said that any illegality was committed by the Government in either seeking the advice of the said Board which is constituted under section 7 of the Act or in acting upon it and deviating to that extent from the committee's recommendations. 12. It cannot be said that any illegality was committed by the Government in either seeking the advice of the said Board which is constituted under section 7 of the Act or in acting upon it and deviating to that extent from the committee's recommendations. 12. It now remains only to deal with the last argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners, namely that an arbitrary discrimination violative of Article 14 of the Constitution has been practised by the Government in issuing Ext. P-7 in effecting a common fixation of minimum wages in respect of both the timber industry as well as the plywood industry. It is alleged in the writ petition that the conditions existing in these two different industries are so divergent and dissimilar that it is not correct or proper to saddle the employers engaged in the two different industries with equal liability in respect of minimum wages payable to their employees. The petitioners' argument overlooks the fact that in effecting a fixation of minimum wages the Government is not really concerned with the capacity of the industry to pay; on the other hand, what it has to really determine is the quantum of the wages to be fixed as the minimum payable under the existing conditions relating to standards of life and cost of living, etc., obtaining in the State. Whatever may be the alleged dissimilarity in the state of economic stability or prosperity of the two different industries, it cannot be denied that the categories of employees referred to in the notification in respect of both the industries consist of persons carrying out similar work and possessing like skill. In such circumstances I do not see anything illegal in the fixation of common rates of minimum wages for such workmen who are engaged in the different scheduled employments. The plea of discrimination is, therefore, devoid of any merit and has only to be rejected. 13. The original petition therefore fails and is dismissed. I do not make any direction regarding costs.