Judgment S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. Both the cases involve common points of law, thereby they are heard together and as agreed by the parties, they are being disposed of by this common order at the stage of admission itself. 2. The petitioner of CWJ. C. No.6150 of 1994 is a wholeseller of fertilizer and has filed the writ petition to quash the Notification No 433 dated 28th of July, 1989 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), by which in terms of Sec.7 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 , an Advisory Board has been constituted. The petitioner has also challenged the Notification No 454 dated 19th July, 1993 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), so far as fixation of minimum wages made therein with respect to the workmen who loads, unloads and carries fertilizer (bags ). So far as petitioners of C. W. J C. No, 11081 of 1993 are concerned. they have challenged the Notification No 401 dated 17th September, 1993 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) which relates to fixation of minimum wages of workmen, working in Bulb Manufacturing Industries. 3. In both the writ petitions, the following grounds have been raised, they are as follows : (i) The constitution of Advisory Board is not in accordance with section 7 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 , the strength of members of the Advisory Board being not in accordance with the said section, (ii) The Respondents-State have got no jurisdiction to raise the minimum wage, at the time of final notification than that of the wage as was recommended by Advisory Board and or the rate as was shown when the objection was called for. Apart from the aforesaid two grounds, one more ground has been raised in the writ petition i. e. C. W. J. C. No.6150 of 1994 to the following effect: (iii) The minimum wage fixed with respect to the workmen of fertilizer industry is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of india, two different rates have been fixed for similar type of workmen, namely, those who loads/unloads fertilizer bags, vis-avis, those who loads unloads cement bags. 4. The brief facts of the case lie in a narrow compass, which are as follows: the Respondents-State from Labours, Employment and Training vide resolution No.499 dated 28th July, 1989 (Annexure-1 to cwjc. 4. The brief facts of the case lie in a narrow compass, which are as follows: the Respondents-State from Labours, Employment and Training vide resolution No.499 dated 28th July, 1989 (Annexure-1 to cwjc. No.6150 of 1994), constituted an Advisory Board under Sec.7 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 with respect to the workmen dealing with loading and unloading opperations. Minimum wage was topped by the Respondent State with respect to the workmen and objection was sought for. No objection was filed by the petitioner. With respect to the wages of loading operations of fertilizer bags by the workmen, so far it relates bags containing 41 Kgs. to 65 Kgs, in this case bags containing so Kgs. of fertilizers are concerned, a rate of Rs.0.55 paise was shown therein. Such rate included loading unloading of fertilizer bags and for carrying the same upto a distance of not more than two hundred meters. For carrying such load for every 200 meters or part thereof, in addition to the above, same rate of Rs 0.55 paise per bag was fixed. Subsequently, after going through the objection, whatever made by any person (not the petitioner), the Respondents-State has come out with the impugned Notification dated 19th July, 1993 (Annexure-2 to c. W. J. C. No.6150/1994), wherein for such loading and unloading of fertilizer bags containing 41 Kgs. to 65 Kgs. , a higher rate of Rs.0 65 paise was fixed. So for as the minimum wages of workmen working in the Bulb manufacturing Indus ries, after the constitution of the Advisory board made vide Notification dated 28th July, 1989 aforesaid, another draft Notification dated 9th November, 1992 was issued (Annexure-1 to C. W J. C. No.1 to C. W. J. C. No.11011/93), calling for objection with respect to unskilled workmen, wherein a rate of Rs.29-80 paise per day was proposed (in the case of bulb Manufacturing Association, we are concerned with rate of unskilled workmen, as pressed at the time of argument ). An objection was filed by Petitioner No.1 (Biher Bulb Manufacturer association) vide their letter dated 7th January, 1993 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition i. e. C. W. J. C. No.11081/93 ). While the objection relating to wages of workmen was raised, no objection was raised by the petitioners, including petitioner No.1 relating to constitution of Advisory Board. An objection was filed by Petitioner No.1 (Biher Bulb Manufacturer association) vide their letter dated 7th January, 1993 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition i. e. C. W. J. C. No.11081/93 ). While the objection relating to wages of workmen was raised, no objection was raised by the petitioners, including petitioner No.1 relating to constitution of Advisory Board. It was after consideration of objections of different persons, including the objection filed by the petitioner No.1, the Respondents State have come out with the impugned Notification dated 17th September, 1993 (Annexure 3 to C. W. J. C. No.11081 of 1993) fixing a rate of of Rs.30/-per day with respect to unskilled workmen, a rate little higher than the proposed rate as shown in the Notification dated 9th November, 1992 (Rs.27/-per day ). 5. For the proper appreciation of the case, as in C. W. J. C. No.6150 of 1994, I may give hereunder the relevant extract of Schedule of the impugned notification No.454 dated 19th July, 1993 (Annexure-2 therein), which is given he hereunder : 5_663_BLJ1_1995.htm Similarly, the extract of the impugned Notification dated 10th September.1993 (Annexure-3 to C. W. J. C ). No.11081 of 1993 is as follows : the minimum rates of wage so fixed shall be within the meaning of clause (iii) of sub-section (a) of Sec.4 of the said Act. This notification shall come into force with effect from the date of its issue No. Name of the Scheduled C ategories of Minimum rates 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. Rubber and Rubber compound industry in which manufacture of Tyre and Tube is also included. . . 2. Plastic Industry. . . 3. Biscuit Industry. unskilled Rs. 30.00 per day. 4. Coal Bricket In dusty. Semi-skill Rs. 35.00 per day 5. Book Binding Industry. Supervisory Board, Corgated Board, Clerical Rs. 966.00 per month. 7. Plywood Industry. . . 8. Electronics Industry. . . 9. Cement Home Pipe, Electric Pole and Rail way sleeper Manufactu rer Industry. . . 10. Electric and other types of Bulbs and Flouresence Tubes Manufacturing Industry. . . 11. Decoratory Industry. . . 6. Counsel for the petitioners in both the cases submitted that the constitution of Advisory Board was not in accordance with Sec.7 of the wages Act, 1948. Cement Home Pipe, Electric Pole and Rail way sleeper Manufactu rer Industry. . . 10. Electric and other types of Bulbs and Flouresence Tubes Manufacturing Industry. . . 11. Decoratory Industry. . . 6. Counsel for the petitioners in both the cases submitted that the constitution of Advisory Board was not in accordance with Sec.7 of the wages Act, 1948. According to them, there should have been equal number of Government nominees representing employers and employees and l/3rd of the total members should have been from amongst the independent persons. In the Advisory Board, such proportion was not made as stipulated under section 9 of the said Minimum Wages Act, 1948 . Thereby, it was contended that the Advisory Board having been constituted illegally, the impugned notifications fixing minimum wages cannot be sustained. 7. It was further contended by the counsels for the petitioners that they were made known with respect to the proposed wages vide Notifications dated 6th October, 1991 (Annexure B to C. W. J. C. No.6150 of 1994) and notification dated 9th November, 1992 (Annexure-1 to C. W J. C. No.11081 of 1993 ). But after receiving objections, if any, and or even without receiving any objection, it was not open to the Respondents-State ta come out with final notification, giving more wages than the proposed wages. 8. Mr. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the petitioners having never objected to constitution of Advisory board so made as back as on 28th July, 1989, it was not open to the petitioners to challenge the same, that too after the issuance of final notification relating to minimum wages. Further it was contended by the learned advocate General that the constitution of Advisory Board having been made on 28th July, 1989, the same cannot be challenged by filing writ petitions in the year 1993 end 1994 i. e. after a delay of four-five years. 9. So far as the dower of the State Government to provide more minimum wage in favour of the workmen than the proposed minimum wages, it was submitted by the learned Advocate General that the same was within the competence of the Respondents-State. He relied upon a numerous decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court. 9. So far as the dower of the State Government to provide more minimum wage in favour of the workmen than the proposed minimum wages, it was submitted by the learned Advocate General that the same was within the competence of the Respondents-State. He relied upon a numerous decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court. In the case of M/s Bhikusa Yamasa Kshetriya and another V/s. Sangamer aloka Taluka Bldi Kamgar Union and others, reported In AIR 1963 SC 806 , the Supreme Court has observed, as follows : "the object and policy of the legislature appears on the face of the act. The object of the Act is to prevent exploitation of the workers, and for that purpose it aims at fixation of minimum wages which the employers must pay. The Legislature undoubtedly intended to apply the Act to those industries or localities in which by reason of causes such as unorganised labour or absence of machinery for regulation of wages, the wages paid to workers were, in the light of the general level of wages, and subsistence level, inadequate. By entrusting authority to the appropriate Government to determine the minimum wages for any industry in any locality or generally, the legislature has not divested itself of its authority, nor has it conferred uncontrolled power upon the State Government. The power conferred is subordinate and accessory, for carrying out the purpose and the policy of the Act. By entrusting to the state Government power to fix minimum wages for any particular locality or localities the Legislature has not stripped itself of its essential legislative power but has entrusted what is an incidental function of making a distinction having regard to the special circumstances prevailing in different localities in the matter of fixation of rates of minimum wages. Power to fix minimum rates of wages does not by itself invest the appropriate Government with authority to make unlawful discrimination between employers in different industries. Selective application of a law according to the exigencies where it is sanctioned and results in permissible classification. Article 14 forbids class legislation but does not prohibit reasonable classification for the purpose oflegislation. Power to fix minimum rates of wages does not by itself invest the appropriate Government with authority to make unlawful discrimination between employers in different industries. Selective application of a law according to the exigencies where it is sanctioned and results in permissible classification. Article 14 forbids class legislation but does not prohibit reasonable classification for the purpose oflegislation. If the basis of classification is indictated expressly or by implication, by delegating the function of working out the details of a scheme according to the objects of the statute and principles inherent at its command, the legislation will not be exposed to the attack of unconstitutionality. x x x x x x x by another decision in the case of Chandra Bhawan Boarding and Lodging, bangalore V/s. State of Mysore and another, reported in AIR 1970 SC 2042 , the Supreme Court has held, as follows : "taking into consideration the provisions of the Act, the objective behind the Act, the purpose intended to be achieved and the high authority on whom the power is conferred, we have no doubt that the procedure adopted was adequate and effective. We have equally no doubt that reasonable opportunity had been given to all the concerned parties to represent their case. We are unable to agree that the impugned order in failure to constitute a committee under Sec.5 (l) (a ). We seen no substance in the contention that the Government is not competent to enhace tbe rate of wages mentioned in the proposals published. If it has power to reduce those rates, as desired by the employers, it necessarily follows that it has power to enhance them. There is no merit in the contention that the Government must go on publishing proposals after proposals until a stage is reached where no change whatsoever is necessory to be made in the last proposal made. " "in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh V/s. Narayana Velur Beedi Maun-facturing Factory and others, , reported in AIR 1973 SC 1307 , the Supreme court specifically held, as follows : in our judgment the view which has prevailed with the majority of high Courts must be sustained. The committee or the advisory board can only tender advise which is not binding on the government while fixing the minimum wages or revising the same as the case may be. The committee or the advisory board can only tender advise which is not binding on the government while fixing the minimum wages or revising the same as the case may be. Of course the government is respected, particularly in the present democratic set up, to take that advise seriously into consideration and act on it but it is not bound to do so. The language of Sec.9 does not contain any indication whatsoever that persons in the employment of the government would be excluded from the category of independent persons. Those words have essentially been employed in contra-distinctions to representatives of employers and employees. In other words, apart from the representatives of employers and employees there should be persons who should be independent to them. It does not follow that persons in the service or employment of the government were meant to be excluded On they cannot be regarded as independent persons vis-a-vis the representatives of the employers and employees. Apart from this the presence of high government officials who may have actual working knowledge about the problems of employers and employees can afford a good deal of guidance and assistance in formulating the advice which is to be tendered under Sec.9 to the appropriate government. It may be that in certain circumstances such persons who are in the service of the government may cease to have an independent character if the question arises of fixation of minimum wages in a scheduled employment in whicn the appropriate government is directly interested. It would, therefore, depend upon the facts of each particluar case whether the persens who have been appointed from out of the class of independent or not. But the mere fact that they happen to be government officials or government servants will not divest them of the character of independent persons. We are not impressed with the reasoning adopted that a government official will have a bias or that he made favour the policy which the appropriate government may be inclined to adopt because when he is a member of an advisory committee or board he is expected to give an impartial and independent advice and not merely carry out what the government may be inclined to do. Government officials are responsible persons and it cannot be said that they are not capable of taking a detached and impartial view". Government officials are responsible persons and it cannot be said that they are not capable of taking a detached and impartial view". In the case of Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation and another V/s. Tiffins Barytes Asbestos and Paints Ltd and another, reported in AIR 1985 SC 1391 , the Supreme Court gave the following findings : "for the purpose of appointing the Committee to represent the employers in a scheduled employment, it was not necessary that 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. x x* * * * we also wish to emphasise that notifications fixing minimum wages are not to be lightly interfered with under Article 226 of the constitution of the ground of some irregularities in the constitution of the committee or in the procedure adopted by the committee. X x X X X X a notification fixing minimum wages, in a country where wages are already minimal should not be interferred with under Article 226 of the Constitution except on the most substantial grounds, the legislation is a social welfare legislation undertaken to further the Directive principles of State policy and action taken pursuant to it cannot be struck down on more technicalities. a Division Bench of this Court by its judgment in the case of Chotanagpur chamber of Commerce and Industires V/s. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 1990 (1) BLJR 177 has held, as follows : 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, 2nd 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, Sating Houses and Restaurants. In support of his contention Dr. Pal relied on A. S. D. Basha V/s. State of Madras, AIR 1963 Madras, 138. I find no reason why the General Secretary of the Sangh cannot be said to be representing the employers of Hotels, Sating Houses and Restaurants. In support of his contention Dr. Pal relied on A. S. D. Basha V/s. State of Madras, AIR 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 apppointment 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 Restaurants have been clubbed under one schedule employment. In Tfffiins barytes (supra) the question was whether the persons 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 WBS appointed to the Committee who bad 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. 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 State 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 cates, I may notice 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/s. State of Mysore and another ; AIR 1070 SC 2042 and it was observed that if the State Government has power to reduce the rates as denied 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. " 10. From the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Supreme Court as well as by this court it will be evident that the following findings have been given and law laid down, namely : (a) The legislation for minimum wages is a social welfare legislature undertaken to further directive principles of State policy and sction taken pursuant to it cannot be struck down on mere technicalities. (b) A person cannot challenge the validity of constitution of an advisory Board, that too after the issuance of final notification of fixation of minimum wages, if no such challenge was earlier made by way of objection relating to such constitution. (c) The State Government offices are also independent persons. (d) The recommendation of an Advisory Board is mere recommendation and not binding on the State Government, thereby the same is directory for that even in absence of a valid recommendation, the State Government can fix the minimum wages, if not arbitrary. (e) The State Government has got jurisdiction to fix more minimum wages by final notification than that of the proposed rate of minimum wages and : (f) Generally the Court should not interfere under Article 226 of the constitution of India in the matter of notification of fixing minimum wages, except on the most substantial grounds. 11. At this stage, it is to be taken into note that the Notification dated 28th of July, 1989, by which the Advisory Board was constituted, the same consists of only 12 members It is wrong interpretation of the said notification made by the petitioners that the same amounts to induction of 26 members. The designations of 48 members having given vide said Notificetion dated 28th july, 1989 from serials 1 to 11. Out of the names of employers representative member (fifteen names shown therein), or it is one of such employers representative member who is to be inducted. Thereby after adding it, it comes to only 12 members in number. 12. The designations of 48 members having given vide said Notificetion dated 28th july, 1989 from serials 1 to 11. Out of the names of employers representative member (fifteen names shown therein), or it is one of such employers representative member who is to be inducted. Thereby after adding it, it comes to only 12 members in number. 12. In that view of the matter, even on factual aspect, it has been wrongly contended by the petitioners that the proportion of members are not in consonence with Sec.9 of the Minimum Wages Act. As discussed above, the petitioners have also not objected to the constitution of the Advisory Board by filing any objection. Further there is a great delay and laches on the part of the petitioners to challenge the said constitution of Advisory Board, the writ petitions having been filed after the final notifications of fixation of minimum wage : i. e. after 4-5 years of constitution of Advisory Board. The first contention thereby with respect to the constitution of the Advisory Board is rejected. 13. Further from the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court, as stated above, it will be evident that the Respondents State have got jurisdiction to fix more minimum wages by the final notification than that of the proposed minimum wage 14. In this background, the second contention raised by the petitioners to the effect that the Respondents State have got no power to enhance the rate of minimum wage than the proposed wage, is also rejected. 15. So far the third proposition which has been raised by the petitioner of C. W. J. C. N.6150 of 1994 is concerned, I think the same is misconceived.15. Counsel for the petitioners wanted to make out a case of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground that for loading and unloading of 50 Kgs. of fertilizer bags, while a sum of Rs.0.65 paise has been fixed, a lower rate of Rs.0.30 paise has been fixed for such loading and unloading of cement bages, though the nature of duties in both the cases are same. of fertilizer bags, while a sum of Rs.0.65 paise has been fixed, a lower rate of Rs.0.30 paise has been fixed for such loading and unloading of cement bages, though the nature of duties in both the cases are same. I dp not accept the contention for the reason that if some lower rate has been given to the workmen of cement industries for loading and unloading, that may give them cause of action to move before the appropriate authority asking for giving same wage of Rs.0.65 paise per 50 Kgs. bag as given to the workmen dealing with loading and unloading of fertilizer bags. But the employers that too who are dealing with fertilizer cannot make such grievance by making out a case in their favour under Article 14 of the Constitution. Further it is to be taken into note that minimum wages are fixed on the basis of nature of job. No pleading has been made by the petitioner of C. W. J. C. No.6150 of 1994, as to why fixation of a sum of Rs.0.65 per bag with respect to loading and unloading of 50 Kgs. of fertilizer bag is arbitrary and/or bad. This contention is also thereby rejected. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in the writ petitions and they are, accordingly, dismissed. Writ Petition dismissed