JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. – This writ petition is directed against the notification dated 26th November, 1981 as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition. 2. The aforementioned purported notification has been issued by the State of Bihar in exercise of its power conferred upon it by subsection (1) of section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Act No. 11 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) read with sub-section (2) of section 5 of the said Act. The petitioners no. 1, 2 and 3 are the representative bodies of employers in relation to shops and establishments which are allegedly affected by reason of the aforementioned notification. The petitioners no. 4 to 6 are said to be the members of the petitioners no. 1, 2 and 3 respectively and they deal in cloth either in whole sale or in retail trade at Bhagalpur and Muzaffarpur. It is submitted that by reason of the notification dated 25th June, 1975 as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition, the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act were made applicable in respect of the shops and establishments of persons whose representatives the petitioners are. By virtue of or under the said notification all places having a population of more than two lakh, a higher amount of minimum wages are to be paid. The basis of the said notification as contained therein reads as follows : - Sl. Category of Areas having Areas having Areas having Areas having No. workers population population population population below 30,000 above 30,000 above one above two and below lakh and lakh one lakh below two lakh 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Unskilled Rs.100.00 Rs.110.00 Rs.125.00 Rs.140.00 per month per month per month per month 2. Semiskilled Rs.110.00 Rs.120.00 Rs.140.00 Rs.160.00 per month per month per month per month 3. Skilled Rs.125.00 Rs.140.00 Rs.160.00 Rs.200.00 per month per month per month per month From a perusal of the schedule appended to the aforementioned notification, it would appear that classification of employees has also been made therein and it has clearly been mentioned which class of employees would come within which category. Skilled Rs.125.00 Rs.140.00 Rs.160.00 Rs.200.00 per month per month per month per month From a perusal of the schedule appended to the aforementioned notification, it would appear that classification of employees has also been made therein and it has clearly been mentioned which class of employees would come within which category. On or about 24th February, 1981 another purported notification was issued with a view to make upward revision in minimum wages of the different categories of employees and by reason thereof objections and suggestions had been invited for being filed within two months from the date of publication thereof in the gazetee. 3. Thereafter, the aforementioned notification dated 26th November, 1981 was issued as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application whereby and whereunder the minimum wages payable to the different categories of employees were enhanced. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the aforementioned purported notification as contained in Annexure 1 is bad in law as allegedly the board was not properly constituted. It was further submitted that the basis of fixation of different wages for different areas with reference to population being vague, the same cannot be Implemented. It has further been contended so far as the notification fixing variable dearness allowance is concerned, the same is also bad in law as on the basis thereof the manner in which the same will have to be paid to the concerned workmen, neutralisation will be more than 100%. 4. Before discussing the points involved in this petition, it is necessary to consider the scope and object of the Act, 1948. The said Act is a beneficiary legislation so far as the workmen are concerned. The appropriate Government has been empowered by reason of the provisions of the said Act to fix the minimum wages in the scheduled employments. The appropriate Government is also empowered to make necessary addition in the list of the scheduled employments. In terms of section 3 of the said Act, the appropriate Government has been empowered to fix or revise the minimum wages payable by the employer in a scheduled employments. Section 5 provides for the mode and manner in which fixation or revision in minimum wages is to be done. 5. In terms of section 3 of the said Act, the appropriate Government has been empowered to fix or revise the minimum wages payable by the employer in a scheduled employments. Section 5 provides for the mode and manner in which fixation or revision in minimum wages is to be done. 5. Section 5 (2) of the said 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. Provided that where the appropriate Government proposes to revise the minimum rates of wages by the mode specified In Clause (b) of sub-section (1), the appropriate Government shall consult the; Advisory Board also.” From a perusal of the aforementioned provisions, it is evident that in the matter of revision of wages, it is obligatory on the part of the appropriate Government also to consult the Advisory Board. Proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 of said Act appears to me to be a mandatory provision. 6. Section 9 of the said Act provides for the manner in which a committee or a sub-committee or an Advisory Board is required to be constituted. Section 9 of the said Act reads as follows : – “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; of one such independent persons shall be appointed the Chairman by the appropriate Government.” 7. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. In paragraph 9 of the said counter affidavit it has been averred that the State Government appointed the Bihar Minium Wages Advisory Board by a notification dated 10.8.1978 read with the notification dated 24.1.1979 purported to be in terms of section 7 of the said Act. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. In paragraph 9 of the said counter affidavit it has been averred that the State Government appointed the Bihar Minium Wages Advisory Board by a notification dated 10.8.1978 read with the notification dated 24.1.1979 purported to be in terms of section 7 of the said Act. The said Advisory Board consisted of ten representatives of the employers and ten representatives of the employees, besides nine ex-officio members and two independent members. 8. Mr. Ranen Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in terms of the provisions of section 9 of the said Act, ten representatives of employers ought to be nominated from amongst the class of employers who are going to be affected by the notification proposed to be issued. 9. Mr. M.S. Madhup, learned Standing Counsel No. 1 on the other hand submitted that the language of section is absolutely plain and unambiguous. The learned counsel submitted that the word “employers’ representatives” does not and cannot mean only representative from such category of employers who are going to be affected by reason of the fixation or revision in minimum wages of particular scheduled employment. 10. The contention of Mr. Madhup appears to be correct. It is now a well settled principle of law that a literal meaning has to be assigned to a provision when the language used therein is clear and unambiguous. Further, ill my opinion, if any other meaning in relation to the word “employers’ representative” is assigned, the same would result in an absurd situation. While revising the minimum wages the appropriate Government in a given case may revise minimum wages in respect of the employees of more than one scheduled employments. In such a case it may not be possible for the State of Bihar to nominate such number of employers’ representatives as is required under the said Act so as to give adequate representation to each category of employers in a scheduled employment which clearly demonstrates that the word “employers’ representatives, denote the representatives of the employers as a whole and not ill respect of each category of employers. In my opinion, if such a construction is put to section 9 of the said Act, the same would result in violation of the phraseology used therein. In my opinion, if such a construction is put to section 9 of the said Act, the same would result in violation of the phraseology used therein. It is a now a well settled principle of law that where the legal issues are not open to serious doubt, the court’s duty is to express a decision and leave the remedy to others. It is also now settled that the words of the statute are to be construed in their ordinary and natural sense. 11. In Union of India v. Shankal Chand Himmat Lal Seth and others reported in A.I.R. 1977 S.C. page 2328, it has been held “where the statute’s meaning is clear and explicit, words cannot be interpolated”. I am, therefore’ of the view that the words ‘employers’ representatives, must mean the representative of employers as a whole and not the representative of employers in respect of each scheduled employment. 12. Mr. Roy thereafter submitted that in view of the statements made in para 9 of the counter affidavit itself it would be evident that the constitution of Advisory Board was not in accordance with law. He submitted that the number of independent members, on the respondent's own showing, exceeded 1/3 of total, numbers. 13. He further contended that number of the independent members must be 1/3 of the number of employers’ and employees’s representatives and, not that of the total number of members. This submission of Mr. Roy is stated only to be rejected. The phraseology used in section 9 of the aforementioned Act is “total number of representatives” which is absolutely plain and in that view of the matter the number of the independent representatives must be held to mean not exceeding 1/3 of the total number of 'members, which would include the independent members also. 14. However, the other contention of Mr. Roy requires consideration. From a bare perusal of the aforementioned provision it would be evident that a committee or a sub-committee or an Advisory Board are to consist of three classes of representatives namely; (A) Employers' representatives (B) Employees’ representatives (C) Representatives from amongst independent persons. In terms of the provisions of the said Act whereas the persons nominated as the employers and the employees’ representatives respectively were to remain the same; the number of the independent members should not exceed 1/3 of the total number of the representatives. In terms of the provisions of the said Act whereas the persons nominated as the employers and the employees’ representatives respectively were to remain the same; the number of the independent members should not exceed 1/3 of the total number of the representatives. In the instant case, admittedly, whereas ten representatives each from the employer’s and the employee’s side were nominated, other eleven persons were nominated by the State of Bihar by reason of the notification dated 10.8.1978 read with the notification dated 24.1.1979. 15. Mr. Madhup, the learned Standing Counsel No. 1, in reply firstly submitted that the ex officio members do not come within the purview of the category of independent members. He, therefore, submitted that the number of the independent members being two, the provisions of section 9 cannot be said to have beet infracted by reason of the said notification. The argument of Mr. Madhup appears to be wholly misconceived. As noticed hereinbefore, the appropriate Government is empowered to constitute an Advisory Board or committee only from amongs the three classes of persons. If it be contended that the ex officio members' were not representing the independent persons in such an event it must be held that their nominations as members of the Advisory Board were wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 16. In view of the fact that the State of Bihar was to constitute the Board only from amongst the three categories of persons mentioned thereinbefore the purported nomination of ex officio members (if they are not treated to be independent persons) must be held to be beyond the competence of the State. Mr. Madbup, however, also submitted that if the ex officio members are taken to be independent members, the notification cannot be said to have been issued in violation of the provisions of section 9, as according to the learned counsel, the Chairman in to be appointed separately. This submission of Mr. Madhup is also devoid of any merit. From a plain reading of the provisions of section 9 of the said Act, in my opinion there cannot be any doubt that the Chairman of the Advisory Board is to be nominated from amongst the independent members. The words ‘such members’ used therein are significant. ‘Such members’, in the context of the provision aforementioned must be held to mean the members representing the independent members. The words ‘such members’ used therein are significant. ‘Such members’, in the context of the provision aforementioned must be held to mean the members representing the independent members. From the statement made in para 9 of the counter affidavit, therefore, if must be held that whereas the number of the employers’ representatives and employees’ representatives were to be ten from each category; the number of the independent persons nominated was eleven. Plainly enough, the constitution of the Board is contrary to the provision of section 9 of the said Act. It is significant to note that a statutory mandate has been issued to the effect that a number of representatives of the independent persons shall not exceed 1/3 of its total members. The independent representatives being eleven in number, their number certainly exceeds 1/3 of the total number of the representatives. The very fact, that the statute has been couched in a negative language, is clearly indicative of the fact that the said provision is a mandatory one. In view of the fact that the number of independent representatives in the Advisory Board exceeded 1/3 of the total number of representatives, in my opinion, the constitution thereof was illegal. As has been seen hereinbefore that in terms of sub-section 2 of section 5 of the said Act, consultation with the Advisory Board in mandatory one. ‘Consultation’ with the Advisory Board must necessarily mean ‘effective consultation’ with a properly constituted Board. As the Board itself was not properly constituted, the notification which was issued pursuant thereto must necessarily be held to be illegal. 17. Coming to the other question raised by Mr. Roy, it may be necessary to consider the relevant provisions thereof. The schedule of the said notification reads as follows : – Sl. Category of Areas having Areas having Areas having Areas having No. employees population population population population below 30,000 above 30,000 above one above two & below lakh & below lakh 1,00,000 two lakh 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Unskilled Rs.210.00 Rs.240.00 Rs.270.00 Rs.300.00 per month per month per month per month 2. Semiskilled Rs.240.00 Rs.270.00 Rs.300.00 Rs.330.00 per month per month per month per month 3. Skilled Rs.270.00 Rs.300.00 Rs.330.00 Rs.370.00 per month per month per month per month Mr. Unskilled Rs.210.00 Rs.240.00 Rs.270.00 Rs.300.00 per month per month per month per month 2. Semiskilled Rs.240.00 Rs.270.00 Rs.300.00 Rs.330.00 per month per month per month per month 3. Skilled Rs.270.00 Rs.300.00 Rs.330.00 Rs.370.00 per month per month per month per month Mr. Roy submitted that the provision contained in the notification relating to payment of minimum wages by an employer to his employees on basis of population in an area is bad in law being absolutely vague. He submitted by way of example that a town or a city consists of many areas and as such any area having population below 30,000, the employer in that area will have to pay minimum wages at one rate; whereas the adjacent area of the same town or city where the population may be more, the minimum wages are to be paid at a higher rate. 18. Mr. Roy in this connection has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Agarwal etc. v. Giri Raj Kishore and others reported in A.I.R. 1986 S.C. page 726. In that case the Supreme Court while construing the provisions of Haryana Land Development Act held that fixation of area with reference to population is vauge. In my opinion, the aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court cannot be said to have any application in the facts and circumstances of the case. In terms of section 3 of the said Act, the appropriate Government is entitled to fix or revise minimum wages in relation to a particular type of employment known as scheduled employment and also may specify the area in which the said Act will apply. The area having certain number of population must be understood in proper context. In this case, a contextural meaning with reference to the text of the said Act has to be assigned. In the instant case, the words “Area having a population of number of persons specified in the schedule” must be read in the context where the provisions of the Act apply. In such a situation, in my opinion, the word ‘area’ must mean a particular place as a unit i.e. a municipal corporation, municipality or notified area committee or Village Panchayat or similar such areas. In the context of the applicability of the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, ‘area’ cannot mean a part of the town or a part of village. The contention of Mr. In the context of the applicability of the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, ‘area’ cannot mean a part of the town or a part of village. The contention of Mr. Roy, therefore, must be rejected. 19. So far as the third point raised by Mr. Roy is concerned, it is not necessary, to deal with the same in details as the same is covered by decision of this Court in Chatanagpur Chamber of Commerce and Industries v. State of Bihar and others reported in 1987 P.L.J.R. page 178. In the aforementioned decision, it has been held that variable dearness allowance payable in terms of the notification cannot be given in such a manner so as to exceed 100% neutralization. The purpose of providing for variable dearness allowance has necessarily a link with the consumers price index and as such by revision of variable dearness allowance, neutralization cannot be more than 100%. 20. For the reasons aforementioned, this writ application is allowed and the notification as contained in annexure 1 is hereby quashed. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.