Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the judgment and order dated 01.08.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition by which the High Court has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant herein in which the appellant herein challenged the validity of the Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016 issued by the State of Goa.
Brief Facts:
The State of Goa issued a notification in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3 read with clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 and sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 determining the minimum rates of wages payable to the various categories of the employees employed in various trades in the Scheduled Employment, which included the basic rates of wages plus special allowance. Thereafter the State Government issued the impugned Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016 under which it corrected the earlier notification. The State Government while issuing the notification chose the first option and fixed the minimum rates of wages plus special allowance. Now, as per the Errata notification dated 14.07.2016, the State Government fixed the minimum rates of wages as per Section 4(1)(iii) namely an all-inclusive rate, the result and effect would be that instead of the basic rate of wages plus special allowance, as per the Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016, there shall be no minimum wages plus special allowance, but as per the Errata Notification, the minimum wages would be the basic rate of tax – an all-inclusive rate excluding the special allowance. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Errata notification dated 14.07.2016, the appellant herein preferred the writ petition before the High Court. The High Court accepted the same and by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the original notification dated 23/24.05.2016 is considered, it can be seen that a conscious decision was taken while determining the minimum wages and the minimum wages were fixed as per Section 4(1)(i). It is contended that therefore, once a conscious decision was taken, it cannot be said that there was any clerical mistake, which could have been corrected in exercise of the powers under Section 10 of the Act, 1948.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as such when the draft notification was issued, clause (iii) of Section 4(1) was under consideration. However, by mistake, thereafter when the notification was issued clause (i) of Section 4(1) was mentioned and therefore, the same was corrected in exercise of the powers under Section 10 of the Act, 1948. It is urged that Section 10 of the Act, 1948 permits the correction of a clerical or arithmetical mistake in any order fixing or revising the minimum rates of wages.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides SC stated that the minimum wages were revised and determined even after consultation with the Minimum Wage Advisory Board as required under Section 5 of the Act, 1948. Therefore, once there was no mistake, the same could not have been corrected in exercise of powers under Section 10 of the Act, 1948. Even as per Section 10, only the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order fixing or revising minimum rates of wages can be corrected.
SC relied upon the case of Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. vs. State of Orissa and Anr. where it was held that an arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation; a clerical mistake is a mistake in writing or typing. An error arising out of or occurring from an accidental slip or omission is an error due to a careless or inadvertent mistake or omission unintentionally made.
SC stated that in the present case, a conscious decision was taken by the State Government after consultation with the Minimum Wage Advisory Board and thereafter the minimum wages were revised and determined in exercise of power under Section 4(1)(i). Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any arithmetical and/or clerical mistake, which could have been corrected in exercise of powers under Section 10 of the Act, 1948.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “the notification dated 23/24.05.2016 could not have been modified by such an Errata Notification which was issued in purported exercise of Section 10 of the Act, 1948. Therefore, the Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016 was wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the relevant provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which ought to have been set aside by the High Court. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition is hereby quashed and set aside.”
Case Title: Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh v. State of Goa & Anr.
Bench: J. M.R. Shah and J. B.V. Nagarathna
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2982 OF 2022
Decided on: 10th May, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
