JUDGMENT Roy, J.-The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for quashing annexure 1 dated 22nd June, 1988 published in the Bihar Gazette revising the minimum rates of wages under section 5(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (the Act for short) payable to the concerned categories of employees employed in the employment of Hotels, Eating Houses, and Restaurants in the State of Bihar. 2. The admitted facts are that by notification dated 2nd March, 1982 published in the Bihar Gazette dated 14.4.1982, the Governor of Bihar under section 7 of the Act constituted Bihar (Minimum Wages) Advisory Board (the Board for short) consisting of independent members and members representing both the emp10yees and employers of scheduled employment. Admittedly, Hotels, Eating Houses and Restaurants are the scheduled employment in the State of Bihar. For this scheduled employment, Mahabir Prasad, General Secretary, Bihar Rajya Mishtan Bhojan Bikreta Sangh (Sangh for short) was appointed to the Board as member representing the employer. By notification dated 21.8.1987 a draft proposal under section 5(1) (b) of the Act was published in the Bihar Gazette for information of persons likely to be affected whereby notice was given that the said proposal would be taken into consideration after two months from the date of Publication of the notification in the Bihar Gazette Objections and/or suggestions received on or before the date of the said period of two months would be considered by the State Government. On 9.5.1988 meeting of the Board was held in which proposal for revising minimum rates of wages of the aforesaid scheduled industry was placed for consideration. The minutes of the meeting of the Board was circulated to all its members by annexure 4. Thereafter notification as contained in annexure I was issued revising the minimum rates of wages for certain categories of employees of the aforesaid scheduled industry. 3. The petitioner challenged the validity of the notification (annexure 1) on the ground that as the procedure made in section 5 of the Act was not followed by notifying the date on which objections and/or suggestion to the draft proposal would be considered, was notified in annexure 3, it was bad. The validity of annexure 1 was also challenged on the ground that as there was no representative in the Hoard representing the Hoteliers. The validity of annexure 1 was also challenged on the ground that as there was no representative in the Hoard representing the Hoteliers. Eating Houses and Restaurants, the Board was not validly constituted and any notification issued after constiting such Board cannot be enforced. Further ground on which the notification has been challenged is that the minimum wages fixed by annexure 1 is higher than the minimum rates of wages mentioned in the draft proposal as contained in annexure 3. 4. I may mention that this writ petition has been filed by the Chamber of Commerce, i.e. the union of employers. Neither any employer of the Hotels, Eating Houses and Restaurants has joined as petitioner in the writ petition nor there is any averment in the writ petition that any such employer is a member of the petitioner. When we observed during course of hearing that in view of absence of any such averment in the writ petition, it would not be maintainable, Dr. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that he may be allowed to withdraw this writ petition for filing a fresh one. As we had heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, we refused this prayer and observed that we shall accept in this case that Hotel employers are also members of the petitioner as submitted by Dr Pal and dispose of the writ petition on merit. I proceed accordingly. 5. Before I take up the points, I may notice the observation of the Supreme Court in Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation v. Tiffin's Barytes Asbestos & Paints Ltd: AI.R. 1985 S C. 1391 regarding the power of this Court in interfering with the notification issued under the Act which runs as follows : "We also wish to emphasise that notifications fixing minimum wages are not to be lightly interfered with under Art. 226 of the Constitution on the ground of some irregularities in the constitution of the commit tee or in the procedure adopted by the committee. It must be remembered that the committee acts only as a recommendatory body and the final notification fixing minimum wages has to be made by the Government. A notification fixing minimum wages, in a country where wages are already minimal should not be interfered with under Art. 226 of the Constitution except on the most substantial of grounds. It must be remembered that the committee acts only as a recommendatory body and the final notification fixing minimum wages has to be made by the Government. A notification fixing minimum wages, in a country where wages are already minimal should not be interfered with under Art. 226 of the Constitution except on the most substantial of grounds. The legislation is a social welfare legislation undertaken to further the directive principle of State policy and action taken pursuant to it cannot be struck down on mere technicalities." That lays down the limitation of this Court. 6. With regard to the first point, Dr. Pal submitted that the State Government was not only required to notify the date Within which the suggestion and/or objections to the draft proposal for revising the rate of minimum wages would be received, the State Government was also required to fix a date on which objections and/or suggestions received in reply to the draft proposal would be considered. There is no averment in the writ petition on this point. Learned Government Pleader No.2 submitted that inspite of that fact, the parties be heard on this point and a decision be given. 7. Section 5 of the Act lays down the procedure for fixing and revising the rate of minimum wages and it reads as follows: "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 proposal will be taken into consideration. (2) After considering the advise 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 subsection, 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" Admittedly in this cast: mode specified in clause (b) was followed. 8. The notification dated 21st August, 1987 containing the draft proposal (annexure 3) reads as follows: "S. O. 809, dated the 10th September, 1987.- The following draft of a proposal to revise the minimum rates of wages fixed in the State Government's notification no. S. O. 275, dated the 15th February, 1982 for certain categories of employees employed in the employment in 'Hotels, Eating Houses and Restaurants' in the State of Bihar, which the Governor of Bihar proposes to make in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (1 of 1948), is hereby published as required by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the said Act for the information of persons likely to be affected thereby and notice is hereby given that the said proposal will be taken into consideration after two months from the date of publication of this notification in the Bihar Gazette." Any objection or suggestion which may be received from any person in respect of the said proposal on or before the date of the said period of two months shall be considered by the State Government." Dr. Pal submitted that in annexure 3 not only the date within which objections and/or suggestions would be received was required to be mentioned, a date on which the objections and/or suggestions along with the draft proposal would be considered by the State Government was also required to be mentioned. Reliance was placed by Dr. Pal in Narottamadas Harjiwandas Vs. Pal submitted that in annexure 3 not only the date within which objections and/or suggestions would be received was required to be mentioned, a date on which the objections and/or suggestions along with the draft proposal would be considered by the State Government was also required to be mentioned. Reliance was placed by Dr. Pal in Narottamadas Harjiwandas Vs. P. B. Gowarikar : A.I.R. 1961 Madhya Pradesh, 182. 9. It will be noticed from annexure 3 that it was notified that objections/suggestions must be received on or before two months from the date of publication of notification in the Bihar Gazette and the proposal shall be taken into consideration after two months from the date of publication of the notification. The notification was published in the Bihar Gazette on 10th September, 1987. The objections and/or suggestions could, therefore, be received upto 10th November, 1987 and the consideration of the draft proposal along with the objection or suggestion would be after 10th November, 1987. Learned Government Pleader. No. 2 submitted that in Narottamdasa's case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court relied in Thankappan Asari Vs. Pankajakshi : A.I R. 1960 Kerala 67 and a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Malavalam Plantations Ltd Vs. The State of Kerala : 1975 L. I. C. 429 overruled the Division Bench decision in Thankappan's case. 10. The appropriate Government under section 5 of the Act for the purpose of revising the minimum rates of wages is required to publish the draft proposal giving atleast two months' time computing from the date of notification within which the represelitatiL1n of the persons likely to be affected are to be received, specify the date not less than two months from the date of notification on which the proposal would be taken into consideration and issue final notification after considering all representations received before the date specified and after consulting the Board constituted under section 7 of the Act. What is important is that the appropriate Government can take up the draft proposal only after two months from the date of the notification. In this particular case, the State Government could not have considered the draft proposal before 10th November, 1987. This period of two months has been fixed to enable the persons likely to be affected to file representation and the representation received within the specified period must be taken into consideration by the appropriate Government. In this particular case, the State Government could not have considered the draft proposal before 10th November, 1987. This period of two months has been fixed to enable the persons likely to be affected to file representation and the representation received within the specified period must be taken into consideration by the appropriate Government. 11. The crucial facts, therefore, to he considered while deciding the validity of notification revising minimum rates of wages, is to see whether two months' time from the date of the publication of the draft notification in the gazette for filing representation has been provided or Dot and whether it has also been stated that representation received within two months will be considered thereafter. Section 5 does not enjoin that a particular date must also be fixed and stated in the notification by which draft proposal was published. In my opinion, this is not necessary because the appropriate Government is not required to hear public in general, but is required to consult the Board before publishing the final notification. With respect, the law has not been correctly laid down in Narottam Das (supra) which held that a particular date must be fixed in the notification for consideration of the draft proposal. My finding is supported by the decision in Malavalam's case. There is no merit in the first point raised by Dr. Pal. 12. With regard to the 2nd point, Dr. Pal submitted that the General Secretary of the Sangh could not have been treated as representative of the Hoteliers, and Restaurant owners and as those employers were not represented, the notification (annexure 1), was bad. I have already noticed that scheduled industry is Hotels, Eating Houses and Restaurants. All these three constitute one class and the General Secretary of the Sangh was appointed as member representing the employers of this class. I find no reason why the General Secretary of the Sangh cannot be said to be representing the employers of Hotels, Eating Houses and Restaurants. In support of his contention Dr. Pal relied on A.S.D. Basha v. State of Madras : A.I.R. 1963 Madras, 138. Facts of that case are completely different and ratio of that case does not apply to this case. Constitution of the Board was notified in the Bihar Gazette on 12.4.1982. In support of his contention Dr. Pal relied on A.S.D. Basha v. State of Madras : A.I.R. 1963 Madras, 138. Facts of that case are completely different and ratio of that case does not apply to this case. Constitution of the Board was notified in the Bihar Gazette on 12.4.1982. There is no averment in the writ petition that any objection was taken by any Hotel and Restaurant employer with regard to appointment of the General Secretary of the Sangh to represent them. The petitioner cannot be allowed to take the point for the first time in the writ petition. I have already noticed that the Hotels, Eating Houses and RestauTa1ts have been clubbed under one schedule employment. In Tiffin's Barytes (supra) the question was whether the person said to be appointed as 'independent' member could be so held. The Supreme Court held in the negative. Question also arose whether when no person was appointed to the Committee who had directly anything to do with Barytes mines, the notification for those mines was valid, the Supreme Court observed : ". ......... For the purpose of appointing the Committee to represent the employers in a scheduled employment, it was not necessary that the person appointed should be engaged for profit in the particular employment. It is enough if a nexus exists between the persons so appointed to represent the employers in the particular employment and the particular employment concerned" There is no merit in the second point. 13. The rates at which the minimum wages were proposed to the notification revising the minimum rates be revised is contained in annexure 3. Dr. Pal contended that the Stale Government could not have fixed the revised minimum rates of wages at rates higher than the rates notified in the draft proposal; it could have been either fixed at the proposed rate or at lesser rates. I may not ice that no where there is any averment in the writ petition that any representation was made in response to the draft proposal by any Hotels, Eating Houses and Restaurants employer. This question arose in Chandra Bhawan Boarding and Lodging. Bangalore v. State of Mysore and another : A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 2042 and it was observed that if the State Government has power to reduce the rates as desired by the employer, it necessarily follows that it has power to enhance it. This question arose in Chandra Bhawan Boarding and Lodging. Bangalore v. State of Mysore and another : A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 2042 and it was observed that if the State Government has power to reduce the rates as desired by the employer, it necessarily follows that it has power to enhance it. There is no substance in the third point also raised by Dr. Pal. 14 Nothing has been shown that the minimum wages fixed are basically wrong. Nothing has been stated that the rates prescribed would adversely affect the schedule industry or even the small unit. Even if they do, to quote the Supreme Court in Chandra Bhawan (supra) "then the industry or unit, as the case may be has no right to exist. Freedom of trade does not mean freedom to exploit". 15. In view of the findings recorded above, the writ petition is dismissed with cost quantified at Rs. 1000/-payable by the petitioner to the State. 16. It appears that on 7.10.1988 at the time of admission of this writ petition, operation of annexure I was stayed subject to the condition that the writ petitioner and its constituents will pay an extra amount of Rs. 75/- to each category of workers in addition to what they were paying under the earlier notification dated the 26th November, 1981 fixing the minimum wages without prejudice to their rights. The employers of Hotels, Eating Houses and Restaurants have taken advantage of this and did not pay the wages as fixed in annexure 1. They shall be liable to pay the balance amount for the period they have not paid the minimum wages at the rate notified in annexure 1 within two months from today. If they fail to do it, the concerned employees or their union or the Labour Commissioner or the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Burdwan Compound, Ranchi, or any other officer authorised under the Act shall take immediate steps for recovery of the amount from the defaulting employer and in such event the defaulting employer shall be liable to pay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this judgment till payment. Bisheshwar Pd. Singh.-I agree.