Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the Notification dated 21.12.1995- as contained in Annexure-1 by which the minimum rates of wages to be paid to the workmen who roll Biri in Biri Industry have been revised under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 . Further prayer has been made for quashing the Notification dated 28.7.1989 contained in Annexure-2 as issued by the State Government in constituting the Advisory Board under Sec. 7 of the Minimum Wages Act on the allegation that the same had not been validly constituted so far as Biri Industry is concerned. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that in the Advisory Committee, one Shiv Prasad Gupta was appointed on behalf of the manufacturer of Biri Industry as Member of the Advisory Board but in the subsequent meeting this Shiv Prasad Gupta did not take part as contained in Annexure-3 and one Subhas Bajpayee attended the meeting as being nominated by one Shyama Charan Gupta for and on behalf of Shyam Biri Works Union, Sahebganj. The contention of the petitioner is that this attending of meeting by Subhas Bajpayee while taking decision regarding the revision of Minimum wages had no authority and as such the Advisory report and recommendation is vitiated by law. This Subhash Bajpayee was nominated by one Shyama Charan Gupta as is revealed from Annexure-3 but Shyama Charan Gupta was never a member of the Board as per Annexure-2, Notification. Further contention of the petitioner is that as per Sec. 9 of the Act, independent members cannot exceed l/3rd of the total members. According to the petitioner, 15 members were from the employee side as representative while 15 members were from the employer side and the same makes a total number of 30 and out of the same only l/3rd i.e. not exceeding 10 can be made independent members, but here in the present case, 11 independent members have been appointed. Thus, provision of Sec. 9 of the Act has been vitiated and hence the whole Notification dated 21.12.1995 deciding the revision of minimum wages for the workers of Biri. Industry are illegal and inoperative in the eye of law. 3. Thus, provision of Sec. 9 of the Act has been vitiated and hence the whole Notification dated 21.12.1995 deciding the revision of minimum wages for the workers of Biri. Industry are illegal and inoperative in the eye of law. 3. In the counter-affidavit, it has been clarified that total members as envisaged under Sec. 9 of the Act consisting of whole body i.e. 15+15+11 which makes a total of 41 and its l/3rd is definitely higher than 11 and as such there is no illegality in constitution of the Advisory body by nominating 11 independent members. Submission of Mr. Tapen Sen, on behalf of the petitioner has got no substance in that matter. Regarding nomination of Subhas Bajpayee by Shyama Charan Gupta as contained in Annexure-3 while attending the meeting has been properly explained in the counter-affidavit. The name of Shyama Charan Gupta was wrongly mentioned rather It ought to have been Shiv Prasad Gupta, who happens to be the Managing Director of M/s Shyam Biri Works Pvt. Ltd. That Shiv Prasad Gupta was appointed as member of the Advisory Committee in the capacity of being Managing Director of M/s Shyam Biri Works. If there be no mistake in Annexure-3 in quoting the name of Shiv Prasad Gupta then also the fact remains that if by that time, the Managing Director of M/s Shyam Biri Works Pvt. Ltd. is changed then the changed Managing Director can nominate a member for and on behalf of to attend the meeting of the Advisory Committee. Moreover, it is a settled principle of law as reported in 1969 (3) SCC 84 ; 1985 (3) SCC 594 and 1981 LIC 294 that the State Government is not bound by the recommendation of the rate shown in the draft approval and the recommendation made by the Advisory Committee stands only as recommendation and not binding on the State Government. In that view of the matter, if there is some lacuna in the recommendation of the Advisory Board the same does not vitiate the Notification in revising the minimum wages. 4. In that view of the matter, if there is some lacuna in the recommendation of the Advisory Board the same does not vitiate the Notification in revising the minimum wages. 4. It appears that the said very Notification has been challenged before this Court in CWJC No. 771 of 1996 (R) by the Hotel Management regarding the revising of Minimum Wages for the employees for the workers of the Hotel and Restaurants and the same very points have been raised regarding the constitution of the Advisory Board and its decision/recommendation and the same has been turned down by a Single Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 9th September, 1996. 5. By relying on a decision of the Calcutta High Court, Mr. Tapen Sen, as reported in 74 CWN Page-520 submitted to the effect that where a stranger is invited to attend a meeting of a quasi judicial body and the decision has been made in the presence of the stranger, although he might not have actively participated in the decision making then also the said decision should be turned down of the quasi judicial body as being vitiated under the principle of natural justice and under the provisions of law. That case related to a constitution of the statutory body of the Regional Transport Authority under the Motor Vehicles Act. That was a statutory body and had the functioning of a quasi judicial nature and the decision is binding on the parties of a meeting held by the quasi judicial body. The same principle is not applicable in the present case as it has already been mentioned that the Advisory body as constituted under Sec. 9 of the Minimum Wages Act has no functioning of quasi judicial nature and their recommendation/decision is not binding on the State Government but the same remains only a recommendation and nothing more than that. 6. On the same line, Mr. Sen has also referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court as reported in 1993 (2) BLJ 193 , Governing Body of Baba Bhut Nath V/s. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, wherein the question was regarding formation of ad hoc committee by dissolving the constituted Governing Body under the Bihar Universities Act. The present case has got no bearing with the decision as mentioned above. 7. Mr. The present case has got no bearing with the decision as mentioned above. 7. Mr. Sen has also referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court as reported in 1958 BLJR, 820, Nageshwar Prasad Singh V/s. Rai Bahadur Kashinath Singh, wherein the principle was enunciated that when Legislature wants by statute to act a particular thing in a particular manner in deviation from that procedure would make the action invalid in the eye of law. 8. In the present case, the said principle is not attracted as I have already mentioned that the State wanted formation of an Advisory body to advise the State Government after survey of the matters in the presence of the representative of both the parties and the independent members regarding the revision of minimum wages. Advisory body was formed and recommendation was also made and only question was with regard to the presence of a person nominated by a member in attending a meeting of the Advisory board. Such nomination cannot be said to be wholly illegal and the same had not been challenged previously and only after decision being made by the State Government and a notification was made, then the challenge has been made and particularly in the writ petition, no such proper statement was made and only at the time of argument, Mr. Sen has pointed out such defect. Even if that defect remains, when the petitioner had already submitted to the jurisdiction of that Advisory Board without challenge, the same cannot be agitated at a belated stage. Moreover, on going through the rates of revision, I do not find that there is any arbitrariness rather the same has been done considering the price Index prevalent at the relevant time. 9. There is no force in this writ petition and hence the same is rejected.