JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners herein impugn Ext.P6 notification fixing revised minimum rates of wages to employees employed in timber and plywood Industries in the State of Kerala. The main ground urged in the writ petition is that the State Government, while issuing the impugned notification did not consider the objections raised by the petitioners and others to the preliminary notification that was published and proceeded to issue the final notifications without adverting to the relevant aspects that ought to have guided the State Government while fixing the minimum rates of wages. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in the backdrop of the pleadings before me. 3. Before examining the legality of Ext.P6 notification that fixes the Minimum Wage for workers in the Plywood Industry, it would be apposite to first look at the statutory provisions that govern the fixation of minimum wages and, also examine the extent to which courts are empowered to interfere with a decision taken by the State Government, fixing a minimum wage. 4. Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] empowers the appropriate government to fix the minimum rates of wages payable to employees employed in the scheduled employments, and to review, at periodic intervals, not exceeding five years, the minimum wages so fixed. Section 4 of the Act specifies the components that may go into the fixation of minimum wages, and the indexation that may be done for the purposes of ensuring a neutralization of the rise in costs, and to keep the wage packet the same in terms of real money value. Section 5 of the Act deals with the procedure to be followed by the appropriate government while fixing the minimum wages and reads as follows: “5. Section 5 of the Act deals with the procedure to be followed by the appropriate government while fixing the minimum wages and 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 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.” 5. It is evident from the statutory provisions, therefore, that the State Government has the option of either (i) relegating the task, of gathering the requisite data for fixing the minimum wage, to committees and sub-committees appointed by it, and considering the reports submitted by the said committees or (ii) publishing its proposals for the information of persons likely to be affected thereby, asking them to submit their representations within a period not less than two months from the date of notification of the proposals, and thereafter considering the said representations and taking a decision thereon, after consultation with the Advisory Board constituted in terms of Section 7 of the Act. The data that is gathered and considered, by the appropriate government must be such as is contemplated under Section 4 of the Act, and the ultimate decision, fixing the minimum wage, is one that has to be taken by the appropriate government after consultation with the expert body specified in the Act namely, the advisory board constituted under Section 7 thereof. 6. As the statute provides for a comprehensive mechanism for fixing the minimum wage in scheduled employments, and the decision is one that has to be taken by the appropriate government using data that is gathered by it, courts will not ordinarily, in exercise of their power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interfere with the said decision of the Government, save in exceptional situations that call for an interference with policy decisions, such as illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety or unreasonableness of the decision in the Wednesbury sense. The attempt of the court, in such instances, would not be to assess what the minimum wages should be, and thereby substitute its views for that of the appropriate government, but only to ensure that the decision of the government is not vitiated on account of any of the factors mentioned above, and that the wage fixation has been done in a fair manner. 7. In the instant case, the main contention taken against Ext.P6 notification is that, it fixes the minimum wages at a level that is significantly higher than one arrived at by taking the necessary components spelt out in Section 4 of the Act and, in that sense, the wages fixed are more in the nature of fair wages or living wages. Reference is made to a calculation sheet, produced as Exts.P5 and P5(a) in the writ petition, to show the disparity between the wages that ought to have been fixed, and those that have actually been fixed. To appreciate the said contention, it would be apposite to refer to some of the judgments of the Supreme Court that deal with the concept of minimum wages in our country. 8. To appreciate the said contention, it would be apposite to refer to some of the judgments of the Supreme Court that deal with the concept of minimum wages in our country. 8. Any discussion on wages must necessarily start with the decision of the Supreme Court in Express Newspapers (P) Limited and Another vs. Union of India and Others, (1961) 1 LLJ 339 (SC), where the Supreme Court while considering a challenge against the fixation of wages of Working Journalists under the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, examined the concepts of Living Wages, Minimum Wages and Fair Wages and brought out the distinction between the various concepts. While a living wage was considered as one that should enable the male earner to provide for himself and his family not merely the bare essentials of food, clothing and shelter but a measure of frugal comfort including education for the children, protection against ill health, requirements of essential social needs, and a measure of insurance against the more important misfortunes including old age, a minimum wage was seen as one providing not merely for the bare sustenance of life but for the preservation of the efficiency of the worker. For this latter purpose, it was observed that the minimum wage must also provide for some measure of education, medical requirements and amenities. A distinction was drawn between a bare subsistence or minimum wage, and a statutory minimum wage, where the latter might be higher than the bare subsistence or minimum wage, providing for some measure of education, medical requirements and amenities. A fair wage was seen as a mean between the living wage and the minimum wage. All these concepts were also seen as dynamic and not static, and were expected to vary from time to time for, with the growth and development of national economy, living standards would improve and, along with it, the ambit of the concepts of minimum wage, living wage and fair wage. 9. The concepts referred above, in particular, that of minimum wage, have to take into consideration various factors such as cost of food, shelter, clothing, education, medical facilities and amenities and ensure that the wage fixed comprises of these components in the required proportion. 9. The concepts referred above, in particular, that of minimum wage, have to take into consideration various factors such as cost of food, shelter, clothing, education, medical facilities and amenities and ensure that the wage fixed comprises of these components in the required proportion. This being an exercise that requires the expertise of labour economists, courts are ill suited to express their opinion on the correctness of the decision arrived at by the experts. Courts have, therefore, confined their scrutiny to merely ensuring that relevant factors have been taken into account while fixing the minimum wage and that the fixation is not vitiated on account of consideration of irrelevant factors. While doing so, the Supreme Court, in the decisions in The Standard Vacuum Refining Company of India vs. Its Workmen and Another, AIR 1961 SC 895 and Workmen vs. Reptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. and Another, (1992) 1 SCC 290 , found it profitable to exhort the appropriate Governments to note the guidelines issued by The Tripartite Committee of the Indian Labour Conference in New Delhi in 1957, while declaring the wage policy that was to be followed during the second five year plan. To the five norms fixed suggested by the Conference for fixation of minimum wages, the Supreme Court in Reptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. (Supra) added a sixth, and they read as follows: “(i) In calculating the minimum wage, the standard working class family should be taken to consist of 3 consumption units for one earner; the earnings of women, children and adolescents should be disregarded. (ii) Minimum food requirement should be calculated on the basis of a net intake of calories, as recommended by Dr. Aykroyd for an average Indian adult of moderate activity. (iii) Clothing requirements should be estimated at per capita consumption of 18 yards per annum which would give for the average workers' family of four, a total of 72 yards. (iv) In respect of housing, the rent corresponding to the minimum area provided for under Government's Industrial Housing Scheme should be taken into consideration in fixing the minimum wage. (v) Fuel, lighting and other miscellaneous items of expenditure should constitute 20 per cent of the total minimum wage. (vi) children's education, medical requirement minimum recreation including festivals/ ceremonies and provision for old age marriages etc. should further constitute 25 per cent of the total minimum wage.” 10. (v) Fuel, lighting and other miscellaneous items of expenditure should constitute 20 per cent of the total minimum wage. (vi) children's education, medical requirement minimum recreation including festivals/ ceremonies and provision for old age marriages etc. should further constitute 25 per cent of the total minimum wage.” 10. What is to be noted, however, is that the above norms were intended to merely guide the appropriate government in the fixation of a minimum wage and the decisions of the Supreme Court referred above do not mandate that the norms are to be applied rigidly in all cases, or that no departure therefrom can be made by the appropriate government. On the contrary, it is my view, that the appropriate government cannot lose sight of its constitutional obligations, while fixing the minimum wage for the workmen in any of the scheduled employments under the Minimum Wages Act, more so in view of the expanded meaning that has been given to the right to life under Article 21 of our Constitution, and the express provisions of Article 43 thereof, which states that “the State shall endeavour to secure, by suitable legislation or economic organization or in any other way, to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, as living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities.” The components that go into the fixation of a minimum wage must be determined, after taking note of those rights of the workmen, that are now viewed as fundamental, and breathing economic reality into them. If, in such an exercise, the appropriate government arrives at a figure that is slightly higher than what may be arrived at through a strict application of the recommended norms, this court would not, for obvious reasons, interfere with the minimum wage fixed by the appropriate government. This Court would also ensure that, the benefits of a notification, fixing the minimum wage for a scheduled employment, are not withheld from the intended beneficiaries, through the grant of interim orders staying the operation of the notification in question, since a measure that is intended to further the directive principles enshrined in Part IV of our Constitution, and effectuate the fundamental rights of workmen, loses its relevance and efficacy through a delayed implementation. In a republic such as ours, legal rights cannot remain a teasing illusion or a mirage to its intended beneficiaries, and hence a constitutional court would, while examining the validity of a welfare measure, take it upon itself to expedite the process of judicial scrutiny, so as to avoid any delay in the adjudication of such cases. 11. During the course of the arguments, and taking note of the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Advisory Board had not considered the relevant facts while recommending the minimum wages in Ext.P6 notification, I asked the learned Government Pleader to make available the files of the State Government for my perusal. The learned Government Pleader has made available the necessary files and, on a perusal of the same, I find that the objections filed by the petitioners and others, to the preliminary notification that was published on 13.05.2014, was considered by the Wage Advisory Board, at its meeting on 18.10.2014 and, on finding that the relevant factors guiding a fixation of minimum wage as contemplated by the Statute had been taken into account while issuing the preliminary notification, it was decided to advise the Government that no modifications were required to be made to the proposals in the preliminary notification. It was accordingly that a letter dated 18.11.2014 was sent to the State Government by the Wage Advisory Board recommending the issuance of the final notification. Ext.P6 notification was thereafter issued by the State Government. The procedure followed by the State Government while issuing Ext.P6 notification, and the aspects considered by the Wage Advisory Board while recommending the minimum wages that were fixed in Ext.P6 notification, lead me to hold that there is no scope for an interference with the wages fixed in Ext.P6 notification, in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. It must be noted, at this juncture, that pursuant to Ext.P6 notification, the petitioners and others approached the State Government seeking a rectification of alleged mistakes that had crept into Ext.P6 notification while fixing the Variable DA component therein. The State Government, therefore, requested the Wage Advisory Board to look into the said representations and advise the Government accordingly. In the scrutiny that followed, the Advisory Board found that a mistake had, in fact crept into Ext.P6 notification as alleged by the petitioners and others. The State Government, therefore, requested the Wage Advisory Board to look into the said representations and advise the Government accordingly. In the scrutiny that followed, the Advisory Board found that a mistake had, in fact crept into Ext.P6 notification as alleged by the petitioners and others. The Board therefore advised the Government to issue a amendment notification so as to rectify the mistake. The State Government accordingly issued an amendment notification G.O. (P) No. 45/2016/LBR dated 25.02.2016, produced as Ext.P10 in the writ petition, clarifying that the variable DA of daily rated workmen and piece rated workers would be Rs.1/- for every point in excess of 230 points in the new series [1998-99 = 100] and for monthly rated workers the variable DA would be Rs. 26/- for every point in excess of 230 points in the new series [1998-99 = 100] instead of 100 points as was mentioned in Ext.P6 notification. In as much as the amendment notification only clarifies the position with regard to the variable DA fixed in Ext.P6 notification, through the rectification of a mistake that had crept into the said notification, I find force in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the said amendment must take effect from the date of Ext.P6 notification itself, and must not be seen as prospective only from the date of the amendment notification. While rejecting the challenge in the writ petition against Ext.P6 notification, therefore, I declare that the amendment introduced through the notification dated 25.02.2016 shall take effect from the date of Ext.P6 notification, by operating in lieu of the corresponding provision in the latter notification. The writ petition is disposed as above.