JUDGMENT : N.K. Das, J. - The Petitioners are Basanti Talkies at Tangi and its proprietor. They have challenged the notification (Annexure-8) of the Labour, Employment & Housing Department dated 15th March, 1974, issued u/s 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Act II of 1948). The notification relates to fixation of minimum wages payable to classes of employee respect of employment in hotels, eating houses and restaurants, employment in shops and commercial establishment and employment in cinema industry for the whole State of Orissa as detailed in the annexure appended to it. 2. Mr. Patnaik, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners urges only one point. According to him, the Advisory Committee formed under Annexure-2 dated 1st February 1968 has not been constituted according to the provisions laid down in Section 5 read with Section 9 of Minimum Wages Act or 1948. It may be mentioned here that Annexure-2 was amended by Annewre-4 wherein Sri U.N. Samantaray, Proprietor of a cinema house was substituted in the Committee. But that does not in any way affect the contention raised by the counsel for the Petitioners. 3. Section 5 of the Act provides for procedure for fixing and revising for minimum wages. Two alternatives are open to the Government for the purpose. One is for appointment of committees or Sub-committees to hold inquiries and advise the Government in respect of fixation or revision of the minimum wages, as the case may be. The other alternate is the notification to be made in the gazettee for information of the persons likely to be affected thereby and specify a date, not less than two months from the date of notification, on which the proposal will be taken into consideration. Section 9 relates to composition of the Committee. The clear provision is that the Committee shall consist of persons to be nominated by the appropriate Government representing employers and employees in the schedule 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. This envisages that in the Committee there will be equal representation from the employer and the employees in the schedule employment. This envisages that in the Committee there will be equal representation from the employer and the employees in the schedule employment. Basing on this provision, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in the Committee (Annexure-2), there has been no representative from the employees and, as such, the formation of the Committee is not according to the provisions of law (Section 9 of the Act). 4. A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in Govindaram Jhunjhunwalla Vs. State of Orissa and Another. Relying on a previous decision of this Court reported in Town Bidi Factory v. State of Orissa ILR 1975 Cutt. 308, this Court held that unless the Committee is formed as provided u/s 9 of the Act, the notification issued by the Government fixing minimum wages on the advice of the Committee and subcommittees is not a legally enforceable one. In the Town Bidi Factory case ILR 1975 Cutt. 308, it was held by this Court following the observations of the Supreme Court, that the problems are peculiar to each trade and, therefore, the legislative purpose under the statute can be best fulfilled only when in consonance with the requirements of Section 9 adequate number of persons are drawn from the respective scheduled employments both on the side of the employer as also on the side of the employees. In view of the admitted position that the Committee set up u/s 6(1)(a) did not satisfy this requirement it would follow that there was a statutory default in the constitution of the Committee. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, we hold that the Committee constituted under Annexure-2 dated 1st February 1968 is not according to law and the notification Annexure-8 issued under the advice of such Committee is not enforceable in law. 5. We would accordingly allow the application, quash the notification (Annexure-8) and leave it open to the Government to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for determining minimum wages. There will be no order as to costs. R.C. Patnaik, J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Allowed