JUDGMENT R.S. Garg, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of W.P. No. 6848/2008, Ujjain Charitable Trust Hospital & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. W.P. No. 12332/2008, Choithram Hospital & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. W.P. No. 4808/2009, Bansal Blood Bank and Pathology Centre v. State of M.P. and Ors. W.P. No. 6889/2008, M/s. Tata International Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. W.P. No. 9098/2008, Chamunda Standard Mills v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. and W.P. No. 4347/2009, Kach Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.. 2. All the petitioners being aggrieved by notification dated 30-4-2008 fixing the minimum wages for Clerks Grade-I, Clerks Grade-II, Skilled Labour, Semi-skilled Labour and un-skilled Labour, have come to this Court with a submission that the State Government did not constitute an Advisory Board as required under Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, therefore and as Notification (Exh. P-5) was in relation to unskilled labours only, the State Government could not direct fixing of the wages of the above referred classes. 3. For short it is necessary to note that Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act provides for fixing and revising minimum wages. Section 5 of the Act reads as under: 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 enquiries 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 proposals will be taken into consideration. (2) 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. 4. Section 5 clearly provides that in fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled employment for the first time under the Act or in revising minimum rates of wages so fixed, the Appropriate Government shall, appoint as many as committees as required by notification in Official Gazette, publish its proposals for information of persons likely to be affected. In case the committee or sub-committees are appointed then after considering the advise of the committee or committees appointed under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1), or as the case may be, after considering all the representations received by it before the date specified in the notification under Clause (b), the Appropriate Government shall, by Notification in the Official Gazette, fix, or, as the case may be, revise the minimum rates of wages of each scheduled employment, and unless otherwise provided such effect of the Notification shall come into force on the expiry of three months from the date of fixation. The proviso appended to Section 5 provides that where the Appropriate Government proposes to revise the minimum rates of wages the Government shall be obliged to consult the Advisory Board also. 5. The Scheme of Section 5 clearly provides that the State Government shall have powers to revise the existing pay structure/wages and would also be entitled to fix the wages in scheduled employment for the first time. 5. The Scheme of Section 5 clearly provides that the State Government shall have powers to revise the existing pay structure/wages and would also be entitled to fix the wages in scheduled employment for the first time. In the present matter, the challenge virtually is that the State Government did not constitute an Advisory Board but constituted an Advisory Committee and, therefore, the entire exercise undertaken by the State Government was patently illegal and on that count the Notification dated 30-4-2008 deserves to be quashed. 6. Shri Jain, learned Advocate General for the State on the other hand submitted that the State Government did use the words "Salahakar Parishad" in the Notification but true understanding of these words would mean that the Government was not appointing any Advisory Committee or Council but it was constituting an Advisory Board. It is submitted by him that an Advisory Council cannot be constituted under the Act and as Constitution of the Advisory Committee is no more available to the State because of the deletion of the provisions contained under Section 6 of the Act, the "Salahakar Parishad" has to be considered to be an Advisory Board. 7. Section 6 of 1948 Act related to Advisory Committees and sub-committees. By the Minimum Wages (Amendment) Act, 1957 (30 of 1957), Section 5 of the Amending Act, Section 6 has been repealed with effect from 17-9-1957. After repeal of Section 6, Advisory Committee or Advisory sub-committee cannot now be constituted. If the State does not have power to constitute the Advisory Committee or Advisory sub-committee because of repeal of Section 6 or it does not have the power to appoint or constitute Advisory Council in absence of the provisions contained in the Act then constitution of the "Salahakar Parishad" has to be accepted as constitution of the Advisory Board. The first challenge to the validity of Notification dated 30-4-2008 is rejected. 8. Referring to Annexure P-5, it was then submitted that under Clause 2 of the Notification which referred to employment other than agriculture, the Government simply proposed revision of the wages of unskilled labours. The first challenge to the validity of Notification dated 30-4-2008 is rejected. 8. Referring to Annexure P-5, it was then submitted that under Clause 2 of the Notification which referred to employment other than agriculture, the Government simply proposed revision of the wages of unskilled labours. It is submitted that if the Government had invited objections in relation to revision of the wages of unskilled labour then the State Government could not authorize itself to revise the salary of other classes of the workmen nor it could fix the salary/wages for the first time in the scheduled industry for scheduled employment. 9. Placing reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the matter of Madhya Pradesh Bidi Udyog Sangh, Sagar v. State of M.P. reported in 1981 MPLJ 214 , it is contended that the Notification inviting objections would be final Notification to clothe the Government with power to revise the wages. It is further contended that if particular class of the workmen is not included in the first Notification inviting objections then the State Government cannot issue a final Notification including number of classes of the workers. 10. Shri R.D. Jain, learned Advocate General, took us through the definition of "Akushal Shramik" (unskilled labour) as given in Annexure P-2 and contended that the perusal of the definition as given in the Notification would make it clear that the definition in fact, was referring to all employees working in the scheduled industries. In our opinion, the argument of Shri Jain runs contrary to the spirit of the Notification. In the explanation, Clause (2) definitions of unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled workmen have been given. After understanding the distinction and difference between the working wisdom and capability of such employees/workmen if the State Government has put particular person in a particular category then it has to be understood by all concerned that the State Government after application of mind and keeping in mind the definition which itself had framed has included particular persons in the said definition. The definition given by the Government in Annexure P- 2 or P-1, in our opinion, would not provide a foundation in favour of the State to support the Notification dated 3-4-2008. The definition given by the Government in Annexure P- 2 or P-1, in our opinion, would not provide a foundation in favour of the State to support the Notification dated 3-4-2008. We would be justified in observing that the State Government or the Competent Authority issuing the Notification had clearly understood the distinction between Class I, Class II (Clerks), skilled, semi-skilled and un-skilled labour and only then has put those persons in particular classes. The argument raised by Shri Jain is hereby rejected. 11. It was then submitted by Shri Jain that non-inclusion of all categories in Annexure P-5 is a procedural mistake and, therefore, this Court should hold that the procedural mistake in a beneficial legislation should not adversely affect the benefits to be provided to the poor section. 12. A perusal of Section 5 of the Act would make it clear that in fixing the minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled employment for the first time under the Act or in revising minimum rates of wages so fixed, the Appropriate Government shall take particular steps. The important of the word 'shall' would make it clear that the provisions of Section 5 are mandatory and they do not leave any scope either for enlargement of powers conferred under Section 5 or diluting the effect and impact of Section 5. The word 'shall' under the principles of the interpretation of statutory law sometimes may be read as 'may', but in the present case and looking to the Scheme of 1948 Act, we are of the considered opinion that the word 'shall' has to be given its complete and full effect by holding that it mandatorily requires the Government to take certain steps in accordance with Section 5. We could understand the argument that instead of a particular body, another body was constituted, as in the present case 'Salahakar Parishad' in place of 'Salahakar Mandal' had been constituted. We could understand the argument that instead of a particular body, another body was constituted, as in the present case 'Salahakar Parishad' in place of 'Salahakar Mandal' had been constituted. The constitution of 'Salahakar Parishad', in our opinion, was a clerical or a procedural mistake and, therefore, also we hold that such procedural mistake would not adversely affect the rights of the State but in a given case where notices are issued to the general public before fixing the wages for the first time or for revising the wages then such notices have to be complete and no scope for any laxity on the part of the Government can be granted nor such lapses can be ignored observing that these are procedural lapses. The procedural lapses would be something different than the statutory lapses. In the present matter, the law/statute requires the State Government to appoint the Board and take the report of the Board into consideration or publish its proposal for information of persons likely to be affected and then decide the objections. One cannot anticipate especially in absence of a notification that the State Government is likely to enlarge the scope of the first notification and is also likely to include the other classes of the workmen. When the State Government issues a notification it is always thought that such Notification is issued after due application of mind, after due appreciation of law and that what would be aftermath and effect of the act on the part of the Government. The State Government, in our opinion, cannot be allowed to say that in a matter like present non-mention of other classes of the workmen in Annexure P-5 was a procedural mistake or lapse. Such lapse in fact has adversely affected the rights of the workman and employer on one side and denuded the Government of its power to include other classes of the workmen in the final Notification to be issued under Section 5 of the Act. Language is medium of expression is generally accepted truth but this is correct for ordinary people, the endeavour of the intelligent should always be that not only they are being properly understood but there is no scope for misunderstanding should we observe that the Government work unintelligently. 13. The arguments of the learned Advocate General is rejected. 14. Language is medium of expression is generally accepted truth but this is correct for ordinary people, the endeavour of the intelligent should always be that not only they are being properly understood but there is no scope for misunderstanding should we observe that the Government work unintelligently. 13. The arguments of the learned Advocate General is rejected. 14. It was then submitted that in case of a welfare legislation if the State Government commits a small wrong but achieves better benefits in favour of the workmen then the Court should not interfere in the matter. It is also submitted that if by the wrong act on the part of the State Government justice is done to the workmen then the Court should not interfere in the matter. 15. Before dealing the point in death, we would only say that whenever the money comes to the State Government it is spent for the public welfare but, that would not authorize the State Government to impose or collect illegal taxes, fees or impose illegal cess or fees or to commit dacoity or extort money from the public at large. If the State Government has to generate the revenue then it has to generate the same in accordance with law and after exercising the authority which is conferred upon it under the law. 16. True it is that some of the persons might have received better wages but this also cannot be ignored that by an illegal act on the part of the State Government some of the citizens have to share their hard earned money which they are now required to pay to the workmen who otherwise are not entitled to receive the same. Justice is not to be done as a complement but, it has to be done in accordance with law and with a clear understanding of law. If the State Government does not understand its powers and duties then the wrong act on the part of the Government cannot be justified saying that it is in the interest of the public and as justice is being done to the larger sections of the Society, the illegality should be ignored. 17. If the State Government does not understand its powers and duties then the wrong act on the part of the Government cannot be justified saying that it is in the interest of the public and as justice is being done to the larger sections of the Society, the illegality should be ignored. 17. It was then submitted that the purpose of a Notification inviting objections under Section 5 is to afford an opportunity of hearing to all concerned and as in the present matter all the employers were invited and heard and thereafter only their objections were rejected, therefore, at this stage the petitioners cannot be allowed to say that the final Notification is illegal. Unfortunately in support of such a tall claim the respondents have not filed any document to show that the discussions were also made in relation to all other classes of the workman. Assuming for a minute that the employers/industries were heard on the question of revision of the pay/wages of the other workmen then too a simple hearing on a question which was not required to be discussed would not authorize the State Government to take up the issue and issue unauthorized Notification. Section 5 is the foundational platform which provides an authority to the State Government to issue a Notification, invite the objections, consider the objections and then finally decide what is required to be decided. In the Notification issued under Section 5 inviting objections if the State Government says that it would consider case of one class of the workers only and at the time of hearing it starts hearing on question of revision of wages of other class of the workers then affording of such a hearing would at all not clothe the State Government with the jurisdiction to enlarge the scope of the very first Notification. 18. In our considered opinion, if the State Government in Annexure P-5, Notification dated 1-1-2008, had invited the objections in relation to un-skilled labours then it was required to decide the question of un-skilled labours only. In the matter of M.P. Bidi Udyog Sangh (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has held that it is necessary that the proposal must indicate the class or classes of employees for which the Government proposes to fix rates of minimum wages. In the matter of M.P. Bidi Udyog Sangh (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has held that it is necessary that the proposal must indicate the class or classes of employees for which the Government proposes to fix rates of minimum wages. If a particular class of employees is not indicated in the proposal, neither the employers nor the employees will have opportunity to make representation and the object behind Section 5(1)(b) would be defeated. In such a case, Notification under Section 5(2) cannot have application for those classes of employees which are not mentioned in the Notification under Section 5(1)(b) of the Act. Deriving positive support from the said judgment and for the reasons aforesaid, we hold that the Notifications (Annexures P-1 and P-2) in so far as they relate to workmen/labours other than unskilled labours would be bad and would have no effect. 19. The petition to the extent indicated above is allowed.