JUDGMENT : The nomination by the State Government to represent employers for the Advisory Board to be constituted under Section 9 of the Minimum Wages Act is called in question by certain employees of hospitals in the State alleging unequal representation in constituting the Advisory Board. 2. The Government by Ext.P3 notification dated 28.10.2016 constituted a committee comprised of employers representation and employees representation. This committee is constituted to advise the State Government in fixing minimum wages for the employees working under various hospitals in the State. As mandate under Section 9, there shall be equal number of representation of both employers and employees. The case of the petitioner is that the employers' nominees 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 in Ext.P3 notification are represented by the employees instead of employers and therefore, constitution of the committee is invalid. It is submitted that the very exercise to be carried out under the Minimum Wages Act is to fix minimum wages of the employees and therefore nomination of the employees to represent the employers is illegal and unsustainable. It is pointed out that the Government has chosen to nominate employees representatives by nominating trade union members and without there being equal bargaining power to the committee to be constituted for the entire exercise to be carried out not in the best interest of the employers in the State. 3. In this context, it is appropriate to quote Section 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which reads thus: "9. Composition of committees, etc. -- Each of the committees, sub-committees and the Advisory Board shall consist of persons to be nominated by the appropriate Government representing employers and employees in the scheduled employments, who shall be equal in number, and independent persons not exceeding one third of its total number of members; one of such independent persons shall be appointed the Chairman by the appropriate Government." Going by the language of the above provision, nomination is prerogative to the Government. The Government can choose any employer and employee in the scheduled employment in equal number to constitute a committee to advise the Government to provide minimum wages. The only question is whether there is equal representation of employers and employees. As seen from Ext.P3 Government Order, for the aforesaid serial numbers representing the employers, the Government nominated employees of such employers to represent the employers. The only question is whether there is equal representation of employers and employees. As seen from Ext.P3 Government Order, for the aforesaid serial numbers representing the employers, the Government nominated employees of such employers to represent the employers. It appears that those employees are working in the administrative cadre of such employers. The question therefore is whether the State Government is empowered to nominate an employee of an employer to represent the employer in the committee. 4. The very purpose of nomination in the committee is to express the views of the employers and employees, as the case may be, before the Government for fixing minimum wages. It is not necessary that the employer or employee should physically present in the committee to express their views. The language used in Section 9 of the Minimum Wages Act 'to represent employer and employee' means any person authorised by the employer or employee can represent the interests of the employer or employee, as the case may be. What that matters, for the purpose of constitution, there must be a representation on behalf of the employer and employee in equal number to ventilate their grievances as well as to express their views. Therefore, any person chosen by employer or employee can be part of the committee to be constituted under Section 9 of the Minimum Wages Act. Then the question would arise whether Government can choose who should be the representative of the employer. Certainly it is for the employer to decide who should represent them in the committee. The power of the Government is to nominate an employer, not the representative of the employer. A representative means one who presents interests of another. 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel, no one can represent the interests of the employer. But in this case except petitioner No.1, the others are not nominated employers by the State Government. Therefore, they cannot have any authority to say that they should be part of the committee. All other employers referred to in Ext.P3 have not raised any objection of their employees representing them in the committee. It is for the employer concerned to say who should represent them. A third party cannot say that those employees are not representing the interests of the employers. All other employers referred to in Ext.P3 have not raised any objection of their employees representing them in the committee. It is for the employer concerned to say who should represent them. A third party cannot say that those employees are not representing the interests of the employers. However, the first petitioner in this case is certainly objected his employee Said Mohamed, the Administrator, representing them in the committee. Certainly this is a valid objection raised by the first petitioner. The first petitioner being a person nominated to the committee, he has every right to choose the person to represent him in the committee. In that sense, this Court is of the view that the Government shall permit the first petitioner to take part in the committee instead of Said Mohamed. Therefore, interfering with Ext.P3 order to the limited extent as stated above, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.