Judgment :- 1. In all these writ petitions, the challenge is directed against the Notification SRO. No. 811 of 1980 issued under GO.Ms. No. 94 of 1980-LBR. Government of Kerala, Labour (E) Department dated 8-9-1980 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of S.3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Central Act 11 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), read with S.5 (2) thereof, fixing the minimum rates of wages payable to the employees employed in the private hospitals, dispensaries and pharmacies in the State of Kerala, as specified in the schedule annexed thereto. The notification fixed the 10th day of September, 1980, to be the date from which the rates mentioned in the schedule to the Notification were to come into force. The question of law raised in all the writ petitions being the same, they were beard in a group, and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The draft proposals with respect to the fixation of minimum wages to the employees employed in the private hospitals, dispensaries and pharmacies had been published in Notification No 40229-77-L & H dated 19th January 1979 in the Kerala Gazettee Extraordinary No. 44 dated 23rd January 1979 as required under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of S.5 of the Act. In SRO No. 811 of 1980 it is found stated that it was after consulting the Minimum Wages Advisory Board constituted under S.7 of the Act that the minimum rates of wages payable to the employees employed in the establishment mentioned above had been fixed. 3. SRO No. 811 of 1980 consists of two parts: Part I concerning office and general section; and Part II concerning the medical section. Part I consists of five groups; groups A to E; and Part II consists of seven groups: A to G. Note to the schedule states: " If any category of employees is found employed in private hospitals, dispensaries and pharmacies in the State for whom minimum rates of wages have not been specified by this notification such employees shall be paid wages and D. A. in accordance with the employees employed therein." It further says that in addition to the basic wages specified above, dearness allowance shall be paid to the above categories of employees at the rate of Rs. 125 (Rupee one and paise twenty-five only) per point per month above 91 points (new series) of the Consumer Price Index numbers of each District Headquarters. The provision regarding employees below the age of 18 is that they shall be paid 75 per cent of the basic wages and dearness allowance of adults Employees who were actually in receipt of wages higher than the minimum rates of wages fixed as per this Notification were to receive the benefit of such higher wages; and customary payment, if any, in cash or in kind, were also to be continued to be paid wherever they were paid at the time of the coming into force of the Notification. In the Explanatory Note, it is stated: "The Government, in Notification No. 40229-E1-77-L&H dated 19-1-1979 (vide: Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No. 44 dated 23-1-1979) had published proposals for the fixation of minimum rates of wages payable to the employees employed in the private hospitals, dispensaries and pharamcies in the State. Objections and suggestions received in this regard has been examined in consultation with the Minimum Wages Advisory Board constituted under S.7 of the Minimum Wages Act. It is now decided to fix minimum rates of wages payable to the employees employed in the private hospitals, dispensaries and pharmacies in the State of Kerala. The Notification is intended to achieve the above object." For the sake of convenience we will refer to the documents as they are marked in O. P. No. 3348 of 1980-M. The draft objections and representations in response to the draft proposal dated 23-1-1979 submitted by the petitioners, who were likely to be affected by the fixation of the rates of minimum wages payable as proposed in the draft proposals are marked as Exts. P1, P2 and P3. 4. The main argument advanced by the petitioners is that the employment in a private hospital, dispensary or pharmacy was not 'scheduled employment' as mentioned in the schedule to the Act, and, therefore the notification (SRO No. 811 of 1980) marked as Ext. P4 is ultravires. P1, P2 and P3. 4. The main argument advanced by the petitioners is that the employment in a private hospital, dispensary or pharmacy was not 'scheduled employment' as mentioned in the schedule to the Act, and, therefore the notification (SRO No. 811 of 1980) marked as Ext. P4 is ultravires. It is true that the employment in private hospitals, dispensaries and pharmacies did not find a place in the schedule to the Act under S.2(g) as it was enacted by Parliament However, in exercise of the powers conferred by S 27 of the Act, the schedule to the Act has been amended by Government of Kerala, to be operative in this State, by adding item 21 to the schedule to the Act by notification dated 3rd December 1957 published in Kerala Gazette dated 10th December 1957 which reads: "employment in shops and establishment (including hotels and restaurants)" S. 27 of the Act reads as follows: "Power of State Government to add to schedule: The appropriate Government, after giving by 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." 5. There is no challenge against this amendment under S.27 of the Act adding item 21 to the schedule to the Act either on the ground that there was no notification or that the notice given fell short of the requirement of three months 6. Actually from Ext P4 it is found that the notification giving notice of the Government's intention was published in the Kerala Gazette Extra-ordinary No. 44 dated 23rd January. 1979 and it was only from the 10th day of September. 1980 that the rates of minimum wages had been given effect to. Ext. P4 itself being a second notification fixing the minimum rates of wages for the employment concerned, that requirement also stands fulfilled. 7. The counsel for the petitioners then submitted that even in the amended form the private hospitals, dispensaries and pharmacies do not constitute a scheduled employment as there is no specific reference to them in the schedule. Ext. P4 itself being a second notification fixing the minimum rates of wages for the employment concerned, that requirement also stands fulfilled. 7. The counsel for the petitioners then submitted that even in the amended form the private hospitals, dispensaries and pharmacies do not constitute a scheduled employment as there is no specific reference to them in the schedule. Item 21 in the schedule to the Act, as already noticed, is "employment in shops and establishment (including hotels and restaurants)". The dictionary meaning of 'establishment', as in The Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, is 'fixed state; that which is established; a permanent civil or military force; permanent staff, one's residence, household and style of living; a business, a settlement'. It is reasonable to presume that what the Government had in mind, while adding item 21 to the schedule to the Act, "employment in shops and establishments (including hotels and restaurants), was to bring within the fold of scheduled employment all shops and establishments which would fall within the ambit of those expressions as understood in common parlance. A hospital, dispensary or pharmacy would be understood in common parlance either as an establishment or as a shop. The dictionary meaning of the expression 'establishment' referred to above, is comprehensive enough to bring within its sweep a hospital, dispensary or pharmacy, inasmuch as each one of them might fall within the expression 'fixed state ...a permanent civil or military force ..a business, a settlement." 8. While making the amendment to the schedule to the Act, by adding item 21, the intention of the Government must have been to bring within its ambit the expression 'establishment' as defined in S, 2(6) of the Travancore-Cochin Shops and Establishments Act, 1125 and in S.2(6) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, which substantially corresponds to that expression in S.2(8) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, which reads: "establishment means a shop or a commercial establishment." 9. At the time of the introduction of the amendment adding item 21 to the schedule to the Act, it was the Travancore-Cochin Shops and Establishments Act, 1125 and the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 which were in force in the Travancore-Cochin and erstwhile Malabar areas respectively. 10. One of the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that the employer had no representation in the Minimum Wages Advisory Board. 10. One of the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that the employer had no representation in the Minimum Wages Advisory Board. As far as we could see there is no warrant for the contention that employer of every item included in the schedule to the Act should have represented in the Minimum Wages Advisory Board. Sub-section (2) of S.5 of the Act reads as follows: "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." 11. From Ext. P4 notification (SRO. No. 811 of 1980) it is found that the procedure adopted by the Government for the purpose of fixation of minimum rates of wages is the one prescribed in S.5(1)(b) of the Act. The requirement of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of S.5 of the Act that there should be a notification in the Official Gazette publishing its proposals for the information of persons likely to be affected thereby and and specifying the date not less than two months from the date of the notification on which the proposals would be taken into consideration has been complied with, vide: Notification No 40229 77-L & H dated 19-1-1979 published in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No. 44 dated 23rd January, 1979, to which reference is made in Ext. P4 itself Exts. P1 to P3 objections are seen to have been submitted in response to that notification. The provisions of either subsection (1) or sub-section (2), in terms, require that where the procedure followed is the one prescribed under sub-section 5(l)(b), there should be a reference to the Advisory Committee or that the advice of the Committee or Committees should be sought and considered. The provisions of either subsection (1) or sub-section (2), in terms, require that where the procedure followed is the one prescribed under sub-section 5(l)(b), there should be a reference to the Advisory Committee or that the advice of the Committee or Committees should be sought and considered. The requirements of the section would stand fulfilled if the preliminary notification inviting objection is duly published and the objections received are considered by the Government before final notification fixing minimum rates of wages is published, fixing the date on which it is to come into force. No doubt, the considerations of the objections received should certainly be objective and reasonable, not arbitrary. As a matter of fact, by way of abundant caution, the Government also consulted the Advisory Committee which had collected the information necessary by giving a hearing to all those who had filed objections in response to the preliminary notification. This also having been done, there is absolutely no merit in the contention of the petitioners that the notification is invalid or unenforceable either for the reason that the persons, who were likely to be affected, were not heard or that they had no representation on the Advisory Board. No other points arise for consideration. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions fail and are dismissed; however, in the circumstances of the case, without any order as to costs. Dismissed.