JUDGMENT : Vaze, J.—I regret, I am unable to agree with the view expressed by my learned Brother Bharucha J. - who has dictated his judgment just now - on the core issue regarding the application or want thereof of mind by Minister of State for Labour while issuing the notification dated 29th January 1985 relating to the fixation of the rates of minimum wages as respects the employees in hospitals. 2. As my learned Brother has given the factual background in great detail, I would not burden this judgment by repeating the same, but would straight-away proceed to state my reasons. 3. In administrative law, a writ Court would interfere with the decision of an authority empowered to act under a Statute (the Minister in the present case) if the Minister, while arriving at the decision, has failed to take into consideration matters which he was obligated to take under the statute; or has taken into consideration extraneous or irrelevant matters which he ought not to have so taken; or the decision arrived at by him is such that no reasonable man under the circumstances would have arrived at. 4. In the present case, when the subject of issuing a notification in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 read with Sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 ('The Act') with respect to employment in any hospital, came up before the Minister of Labour, he had discussion with Mr. Baskhetre, Deputy Commissioner of Labour and instructed him to prepare a comparative statement showing the rates of emoluments in hospitals and dispensaries. That statement was accordingly prepared and put up to the Minister. The Minister was also apprised of the fact that a Writ Petition No. 1977 of 1983 in respect of the disparity in payment of minimum rates of wages in two scheduled employments i.e. in canteens and hotels was decided by Pendse J. Thirdly, the file also contained a notification dated 1st December 1984 pertaining to the minimum rates of wages in respect of the employees employed in another scheduled employment viz, any dispensary, not being a dispensary in any hospital. 5. 5. Pendse J., while disposing of Writ Petition No. 1977 of 1983 on 11th October 1984, had agreed with the submission of Counsel that the duties performed by the employees in the hotel and restaurant on one hand and canteens and clubs on the other are almost parallel and there is no rationale or logic why the Government should publish different notification and adopt different rates for payment of wages in respect of employees of these two categories. 6. After perusing these materials, the Minister passed the Order dated 4.1.1985 reproduced in extenso in the judgment of my learned brother whereby he ordered that the same rates of wages including special allowances as fixed for employees in dispensaries under the notification dated 1st December 1984 should be fixed for employees engaged in hospitals with effect from 26th January 1985. 7. Thereafter the matter was processed by the Commissioner of Labour who felt that slightly higher wages should be given for the resident medical officer and matrons in the highly skilled category and also changed the zoning pattern to comport it with that of dispensaries. The Commissioner also stated that he has taken into consideration various suggestions including those from U.D. and P.H.D. This draft was approved by the Minister and thus the notification dated 25th January 1985 which is the subject matter of challenge came to be issued. 8. We do not have before us the affidavit of the Minister and hence the rationalisation by which he came to the decision that the prevailing rates of minimum wages for the employees working in the dispensary should be prescribed as the rates of minimum wages for the staff working in the hospitals will have to be gleaned from the notings on the file and the material available to the Minister. As appears therefrom, the Minister took into consideration first, the report of the Committee appointed to advise Government in the matter of revision of the minimum rates of wages for employees in the hospitals; second, the notification dated 1st December 1984 prescribing the minimum rates of wages for employees working in dispensaries; third, the judgment of Pendse J., containing the observations regarding the want of rationale or logic in publishing different notifications and adopting different rates of payment of wages in respect of the employees in the two categories of workers in hotels and restaurants on the one hand and canteens and clubs on the other. To this mass of material available to the Minister, he added his own observation: "The activities and nature of duties of employees working in dispensaries and hospitals is no doubt identical and therefore it would not be desirable to fix the minimum wages for employees in the hospital at lower rates than fixed for dispensaries." 9. It is nobody's case that there was, in the file before the Minister, any evidence as such regarding the functioning of the dispensaries and hospitals or a comparative study of the work performed by the employees in dispensaries and hospitals. Dispensaries and hospitals are not esoteric institutions like nuclear plants about the working of which one may say that a non-expert like the Minister would not have any knowledge and would lack the competence to compare the functioning therein. Hospitals and dispensaries are intended for the public in general and common people including Ministers do visit the same. It could as well be that the Minister drew upon his personal knowledge from experience gained in visits to the dispensaries and hospitals in making a general observation -as he did - about the activities and natures of duties of the employees working in these two organisations. The fact that the Minister had applied his mind to the Report of the Committee on Hospitals which recommended a rate lower than that which is prescribed for the employees working in dispensaries, is amply borne out by the very observations of the Minister that "it would not be desirable to fix the minimum wages for employees in the hospitals at lower rates than fixed for dispensaries". Wherefrom could the Minister get this information except from the report itself ? 10. Wherefrom could the Minister get this information except from the report itself ? 10. It was never the complaint of the petitioner that the Minister has not applied his mind to the report of the Hospital Committee. According to the petitioner, the notification dated 29.1.1985 "while purporting to say that the advice of the Minimum Wages Committee had been considered by the respondents, does not indicate the reasons which weighed with the respondent in totally ignoring the advice tendered by the said committee and for revising the minimum rates at a level much higher than the rates recommended by the Committee which was specifically constituted for the purpose of going into the question of revision of minimum rates of wages.....". 11. To my mind, the text of the notification to be issued under the Minimum Wages Act need not contain the reasons as to why Government is departing from the recommendations made by the Committee appointed under Clause (a) of Section 5 of the Act to hold enquiries and advise the appropriate Government. The reasons, when challenged, have been made available to the Court, and, as observed above, a comparison of the rates recommended by the Hospital Committee with the rates in force for the employees in the dispensaries itself would mean a consideration of the advice of the Committee. The report of the Hospital Committee need not be considered in isolation; there is no provision in the Act against a comparative study. Nor can it be said with any degree of conviction that the rates of minimum wages for employees in dispensaries were totally irrelevant for that purpose. 12. Coming now to the third limb of the question as to whether the decision of the Minister in equating rates of minimum wages payable to employees in hospitals with those working in dispensaries is arbitrary or capricious, one has to appreciate that a writ Court will not evaluate the decision of the Minister by imagining what a reasonable and prudent man placed in that chair would have done under the circumstances. The Minister, no doubt, was influenced by the observations of Pendse J., in the writ petition of the Canteen Workers and this influence is clear from the Minister's observations that in case there is a disparity between the rates of minimum wages in hospitals and dispensaries "the same will not stand judicial scrutiny". The Minister, no doubt, was influenced by the observations of Pendse J., in the writ petition of the Canteen Workers and this influence is clear from the Minister's observations that in case there is a disparity between the rates of minimum wages in hospitals and dispensaries "the same will not stand judicial scrutiny". The judgment of Pendse J., though related to a different industry, also dealt with scheduled employments falling under two distinct entries as is the case here. Only the processes were in reverse order; there the minimum rates for wages for the two categories were initially the same and were sought to be varied to bring in an imbalance; here, the rates are different and are sought to be equalised making the two cases obverse and converse of the same coin. But, it cannot be said that the observations in that judgment were so irrelevant or extraneous that the Minister should not have taken them into consideration at all while coming to the decision regarding fixation of rates of minimum wages in hospitals. The Minister has not, in the manner of speaking, closed his eyes or shut his ears to the recommendations of the Hospital Committee. He has, after considering those recommendations, reasoned out, in his own way, that there is not much difference between the nature of work and duties of employees in hospitals and dispensaries and also felt that if he does not equate the two scales it will be struck down by the Courts. I would not, therefore, say that the decision of the Minister is arbitrary or capricious or one which no reasonable man on the basis of material available to him would have come to. 13. The reports of the Committee on Dispensary does contain a recommendation regarding Dispensaries having facilities for Dialysis and intensive cardiac cafe unit which probably is a futuristic projection which the Committee was entitled to make regardless of whether such facilities exist today in the Dispensaries. The recommendation would apply if a Dispensary offers these facilities; till then it remains dormant. 14. The recommendation would apply if a Dispensary offers these facilities; till then it remains dormant. 14. As regards the mathematical calculation by which the notification attempts to nullify the dearness allowance at a level higher than 100% by grant of special allowance, I entirely agree with my learned Brother that the Notification will have to be struck down and re-issued with the figures so worked out that the dearness neutralisation does not exceed 100% after taking into account the various consumer price indices including those prevailing on 29th January 1985. Thus, as I see the notification, it is like the curate's egg; mostly good, partially bad. Good, because the Minister has applied his mind and considered the report of the advisory committee; bad, because the special allowance seeks to neutralise the dearness in excess of 100%. The end result is that such an egg has to go. 15. To conclude, I would declare that the notification does not suffer from the vice of non-application of mind by the Minister to the report of the Hospital Committee appointed in pursuance of the provisions of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act but would strike it down as it attempts to neutralise the dearness level to a stage higher than 100% and direct the State Government to reissue the same after taking into consideration the various consumer price Indices so however that the neutralisation of the dearness level by the special allowance docs not exceed 100% of the price increase as laid down by the Supreme Court in Shri Chalthan Vibhag Khand udyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd. v. G.S. Barot.: 1979 (II) LLJ 385. There will be no order as to costs in both the petitions.