Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pithampur Audyogik Sangthan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7084 -1-
WP No.9401/24, 11921/24 & 12606/24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 20th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No.9401 of 2024
PITHAMPUR AUDYOGIK SANGTHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 11921 of 2024
UJJAIN CHARITABLE TRUST HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CEN-
TRE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 12606 of 2024
ASSOCIATION OF INDUSTRIES MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
SECRETARY TARUN VYAS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Girish Patwardhan learned Senior Counsel with Shri Oshin
Upadhyay - Advocate for the petitioner in WP No.9401/2024.
Shri Kuldeep Bhargava - Learned counsel for the petitioner in WP
No.11921/2024.
Shri Vikas Jaiswal - Learned counsel for the petitioner in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TRILOK SINGH
SAVNER
Signing time: 03/20/2025
5:40:41 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7084 -2-
WP No.9401/24, 11921/24 & 12606/24
WP No.12606/2024.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam - Government Advocate for respondents/
State.
Shr Karpe Prakhar Mohan learned counsel for the respondent
[INT].
Shri Balveer Sharan Mudotiya, learned counsel for the
respondent [INT].
Shri Shashi Kant Chourasia, learned counsel for the
respondent [INT].
Shri Babu Lal Nagar learned counsel for the respondent [INT].
Ms. Shweta Upadhay, learned counsel for the respondent [INT].
Reserved on : 06/03/2025
Pronounced on : 20/03/2025
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
1. This order shall govern the disposal of W.P. No.9401/2024,
W.P.11921/2024 & W.P.12606/2024. The petitioners being industrial
associations and charitable institutions have approached this court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek judicial intervention.
2. The petitioners are challenging the legality and validity of the
impugned notifications issued by the Respondents notably the notification
dated 04.03.2024 (Notification No. F 4(B)1/2014/A 16) and the subsequent
notification dated 13.03.2024 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh to
revise the minimum wages applicable to various scheduled employments
throughout the State under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The petitioners
Pithampur Audyogik Sangthan representing industrial interests in Pithampur;
the Association of Industries Madhya Pradesh representing various industrial
WP No.9401/24, 11921/24 & 12606/24
units across the state; and Ujjain Charitable Trust Hospital & Research
Centre representing charitable institutions to which the wage revisions apply.
3. Vide the impugned notifications minimum wages for the
employees/workmen working in 68 scheduled employments have been
revised @ 25% ( approx.) after 10 years. The common grievance of the
petitioners is that this uniform hike in wages is irrespective of the differing
cost of living between establishments situated in urban and rural areas and
therefore suffers from arbitrariness and unreasonableness. The petitioners
have submitted that the Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Advisory Board
recommendations were adopted after a four-year delay and the board was
also improperly constituted with an imbalance in representation and
violation of the statutory provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The
notifications issued by the state of Madhya Pradesh which are under
challenge by the petitioners are as follows:
(i) Notification dated 18.07.2019, concerning the constitution of
the Advisory Board under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
(ii) Notification dated 04.03.2024 (No. F-4(B) 1/2014/A-16),
revising the minimum wages for various scheduled employments
in the state.
(iii) Notification dated 13.03.2024, issued by the Labour
Commissioner, reiterating the revised wage structure.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the
impugned notification revising the minimum wages suffers from
arbitrariness and lacks a rational basis as it fails to take into account
economic disparities between urban and rural areas. According to them
metropolitan cities such as Indore, Bhopal, and Jabalpur have a substantially
WP No.9401/24, 11921/24 & 12606/24
higher cost of living than smaller towns and villages yet the notification
prescribes a uniform wage structure across the entire state. This approach
disregards regional economic variations and imposes an undue financial
burden on industries operating in areas with lower operational costs and
limited economic activity. Such an indiscriminate uniform fixation of
minimum wages is contrary to Sections 3 and 5 of the Minimum Wages Act,
1948, which require the appropriate government to consider factors such as
the cost of living, prevailing wages in comparable industries, localities and
local economic conditions while fixing and revising minimum wages.
5. The Learned Counsel further submitted that the composition of the
Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Advisory Board violated the provisions
of Section 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which mandates equal
representation of employers, employees, and independent members. Three of
the five employer representatives on the advisory Board at that time were no
longer holding valid positions in the scheduled employments which they
were meant to represent, thereby rendering their appointment ineffective.
Moreover, the inclusion of Ms. Shikha Joshi, Labour Commissioner, Indore,
as an independent member is also in clear violation of statutory provisions,
as it compromises the neutrality of the Board and creates a conflict of
interest. The learned senior counsel has relied on the judgment in the case of
the Federation of Okhla Industrial Association (Regd.) and Ors. Vs. Lt.
Governor of Delhi and Ors reported in (2018) 3 LLJ 622 Del., where the
Delhi High Court quashed a minimum wage notification on the ground that
the advisory committee was improperly constituted and lacked fair
representation of stakeholders. The learned senior counsel further submitted
WP No.9401/24, 11921/24 & 12606/24
that the impugned wage revision is procedurally defective, as it violates the
statutory mandates under Sections 3, 5, and 9 of the Minimum Wages Act,
1948 which requires the government to conduct consultations with
stakeholders, form advisory committees, and publish proposals before
finalizing wage revisions.
6. Shri Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the
State Government failed to comply with the order passed by this on
01.08.2024 whereby the respondents were directed to convene a meeting
with stakeholders to consider region-wise classification of minimum wages.
In compliance with this directive, the petitioners submitted their
representations through letters dated 06.08.2024 and 07.08.2024 proposing a
sector-wise and region-wise classification of wages to reflect local economic
realities. However, the State Government did not consider them and the
respondents have falsely asserted before this Court that no stakeholder
suggestions were received, thereby misleading this Court. Shri Patwardhan,
learned Senior Counsel highlighted that the recommendations of the
Advisory Board were made in 2019, but the impugned notification was
issued only in 2024, after an unexplained delay of four years, without any
fresh evaluation of prevailing economic conditions.
7. Shri Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel also argued that the revised
minimum wages in Madhya Pradesh are significantly higher than those
prevailing in neighbouring states such as Gujarat, Rajasthan, and
Chhattisgarh, thereby placing industries in the state at a competitive
disadvantage. By imposing excessive wage rates, the State Government has
disregarded the financial viability of businesses, particularly small and
WP No.9401/24, 11921/24 & 12606/24
medium enterprises (SMEs) and charitable institutions, which operate on
limited resources and risks causing an exodus of industries from Madhya
Pradesh to states with lower labour costs resulting in loss of employment and
revenue for the state.
8. Learned senior counsel relied on the judgment in the case of Bhikusa
Yamasa Kshatriya v. Sangamner Akola Taluka Bidi Kamgar Union
reported in AIR 1963 SC 806, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that
minimum wage fixation must be based on a fair and rational economic
assessment to avoid disrupting industrial viability. Lastly, it is contended
that the wage revision fails to account for industry-specific differences,
treating diverse sectors such as information technology, manufacturing, and
hospitality alike despite their distinct cost structures and employment
conditions. The State Government should have adopted an industry-specific
approach, rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all wage structure that ignores
financial realities across sectors. The petitioners relied on the judgment in
the case of the Federation of Okhla Industrial Association (Supra),
wherein the Delhi High Court held that minimum wages must reflect
industry-specific conditions and cannot be uniformly applied without a
sector-wise and regional classification. Thus, the petitioners prayed that the
impugned notifications be quashed and an order be passed for reconstitution
of the Advisory Board in strict conformity with the Minimum Wages Act,
and the implementation of a sector-wise and zone-wise classification of
minimum wages to ensure fairness and economic sustainability in the state.
Shri Vikas Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the Association of
WP No.9401/24, 11921/24 & 12606/24
Industries Madhya Pradesh in WP No.12606/2024 has adopted the aforesaid
argument.
9. The respondents have filed a detailed reply. Respondent no.5 to 8
various trade unions who were impleaded as parties by order dated
03.12.2024 have also filed their written submissions.
10. Learned Government Advocate contended that the present writ
petitioners are challenging the revision of minimum wages is devoid of
merit, as the impugned notifications have been issued in compliance with the
provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Government of M.P., in
exercise of its statutory powers under Sections 3, 5, and 9 of the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948 has revised the minimum wages based on economic
considerations and after due consultation with the Advisory Board ensuring
fair wages for workers and maintaining parity across establishments.
11. It is further submitted that the Labour Commissioner issued a
notification dated 24.05.2024 revising the minimum wages, but not
superseding the earlier notification of 04.03.2024. This notification was
issued in compliance with the stay granted by this Court, though the
notification does explicitly state that it is subject to the final decision in the
pending writ petitions.
12. The respondents contend that the principles of natural justice were
duly followed, as objections and suggestions were invited before the
finalization of the notification. The respondents rely on Sections 3, 4, and 5
of the Minimum Wages Act, of 1948 which empower the State to fix or
revise minimum wages. Section 5 provides two modes of revision: (i)
appointing committees for inquiries or (ii) issuing a draft notification in the
WP No.9401/24, 11921/24 & 12606/24
Official Gazette, inviting objections. In the present case, the draft
notification dated 27.09.2023 was published on 06.10.2023, inviting
representations from stakeholders. The Advisory Board was constituted
under Sections 7 and 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and was
responsible for coordinating wage fixation, with representation from
employers, employees and independent persons in compliance with statutory
mandates.
13. It is further submitted that the Madhya Pradesh amendment to Section
9 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 allows government officers to be
considered independent persons ensuring that the Board's recommendations
were legally sound. The composition of the Advisory Board and the
deliberations thereafter adhered to procedural requirements, and the
recommendations of the advisory board were forwarded to the State
Government leading to the issuance of the final notification on 04.03.2024
demonstrating that all due process was followed in the issuing of the
notifications. The respondents further submitted that all procedural
requirements under Rule 14 of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950
including quorum for Board meetings were duly met. The relevant meeting
had the prescribed one-third of the total members present, including
representatives from both employers and employees, making the decision of
the Board legally valid. The notification underwent wide publicity ensuring
compliance with legal mandates, however since the petitioners did not file
any objection in response to the draft notification, despite ample time and
opportunity, their challenge is just an afterthought.
WP No.9401/24, 11921/24 & 12606/24
14. The respondents further submitted that private hospitals and
educational institutions fall within Entry No. 34 of the Scheduled Industries
thereby making them subject to minimum wage revisions. The revised
minimum wages have been determined based on economic realities, inflation
trends, and wage structures in neighbouring states, ensuring that workers
receive just and equitable wages. The wage revision ensures industrial
harmony, balancing the interests of employers and employees. The claim of
the petitioner that the increase is arbitrary is untenable, as wage fixation is
within the legislative competence of the State Government, as upheld in
judicial precedents.
15. The learned counsel appearing for the Trade Union has relied on the
judgment in the case of Association of Industries, Dewas vs. State of M.P
reported in 2015 SCC Online MP 7543, in which the division bench of this
court had confirmed that wage revisions based on the recommendations of
the advisory board are legally valid. Further reliance is placed on Bijay
Cotton Mills Ltd. v. State of Ajmer reported in AIR 1955 SC 33, wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court has upheld the necessity of minimum wage fixation
to prevent labour exploitation. Additionally, in the case of C. B. Boarding &
Lodging v. State of Mysore reported in AIR 1970 SC 2042 the Apex Court
clarified and held that minimum wages must ensure a reasonable standard of
living for workers.
16. The respondent/State denied any procedural irregularities and
submitted that the Labour Commissioner, as Chairperson of the Advisory
Board, was lawfully appointed under the Madhya Pradesh amendment to
Section 9 and his role does not compromise the independence of the Board.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7084 -10-
WP No.9401/24, 11921/24 & 12606/24
The contention of petitioners that separate wage classifications should be
made for different industries is misplaced, as the Act does not mandate
industry-specific differentiation but categorizes workers as skilled, semi-
skilled, and unskilled, ensuring fair compensation across job roles.
Furthermore, the contention that the consultation process was flawed is
baseless, as personal hearings are not a statutory requirement. The law
mandates only notification and consideration of objections, which was duly
complied with.
17. Furthermore, the government counsel submitted that the notification
dated 04.08.2021 was challenged in the Madhya Pradesh Textile Association
vs. State of M.P in Writ Petition No. 10772/2024 during the pendency of
which the State Government issued a subsequent notification dated
15.01.2025, which amended Schedule Part I of the Act by incorporating new
industries--including Textiles & Made-ups, Apparel Manufacturing
(Woven, Knitted, and Technical Textiles Fabrics), and Footwear
Manufacturing--into the scheduled employments. The same notification has
also been adopted by the state of Madhya Pradesh and a minimum wages
circular dated 28.02.2025 has been issued. This Court in the case of Madhya
Pradesh Textile Association (Supra) by its order dated 10.02.2025 directed
the State Government to initiate a fresh wage revision procedure in
consultation with the Minimum Wages Advisory Board. Further reliance is
placed by the counsels appearing for respondents on Ujjain Charitable Trust
Hospital & Research Centre vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2010
(3) MPLJ 29; Bijoy Krishna Paul vs. the State of Assam reported in 1968
SCC OnLine Gau 47; U.P. Cinema Exhibitors Federation vs. State of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7084 -11-
WP No.9401/24, 11921/24 & 12606/24
Uttar Pradesh reported in 1977 SCC OnLine All 562; Unichoyi v. State of
Kerala reported in AIR 1962 SC 12; Union Of India vs M.V. Mohanan
Nair reported in AIR 2020 SC 5107 and State of M.P. vs. R.D. Sharma
reported in 2022 (2) MPLJ 621.
18. In view of the above submissions, the learned government counsel
respectfully submitted that the impugned notifications are issued following
the due process of law and in strict compliance with the Minimum Wages
Act, 1948 and are aimed at achieving economic justice and wage parity. The
respondents thus pray that this Court dismisses the present petitions by
upholding the validity of the revised minimum wage notification.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused
the record.
19. The Minimum Wages Act, of 1948 is an Act to provide for fixing
minimum rates of wages by the appropriate government in scheduled
employment. Section 2(c) of the Act defines the 'competent authority',
which means the authority appointed by the appropriate Government by way
of notification to ascertain from time to time the cost of living index
applicable to the employees employed in the scheduled employment. Section
2(d) defines the 'cost of living index number', which is an index number
ascertained and declared by the competent authority by notification in the
Official Gazette applicable to employees in scheduled employment. Wages
as defined in Section 2(h) means all remuneration, capable of being
expressed in terms of money to an employee by an employer in respect of
his employment or work, but does not include the value of any house,
accommodation, supply of light, water, medical attendance etc. All types of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7084 -12-
WP No.9401/24, 11921/24 & 12606/24
skilled, unskilled, and clerical persons who are employed for hire or reward
are entitled to get the minimum rates of wages fixed and revised from time
to time. Section 3 authorises the appropriate Government to fix of minimum
rates of wages payable to the employees employed in employment specified
in Part I and Part II of the Schedule. As per Section 3(1)(b) the appropriate
Government shall revise the minimum wages within the interval of five
years. The Government may fix minimum rates of wages for time work and
for piece work.
20. The primary grievance of the petitioners by way of these petitions is
with respect to uniform revision of wages under Section 3(3)(a) of the Act
for establishments at different localities of the state. According to the
petitioners, while revising the minimum rates, the State Government did not
consider the important fact that the industries are situated in different parts
of the State, hence there cannot be a uniform wage payable to the employees
employed in the industries. The employees residing in the big cities or
nearby areas like Indore, Bhopal, Jabalpur, and Gwalior cannot be given
similar wages to those employees who are residing in the B or C-class cities
or nearby areas.
21. The Pithampur Audyogik Sangthan is the petitioner in WP
No.9401/2024 which is an association of industries situated near Indore city,
rather the industries situated in a small town may have gradients about
uniform wage hike/revision as there cannot be a same cost of living in two
different locations. Shri Patwardhan learned senior counsel argued that the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment has revised the
Variable Dearness Allowance for areas 'A', 'B', and 'C' on the basis of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7084 -13-
WP No.9401/24, 11921/24 & 12606/24
average price consumer index for industrial workers and in the State like
Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, Karnataka and Maharashtra,
where the State Government has prescribed the minimum wages for
unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled, and highly skilled employees by dividing the
State into 3-4 zones. This contention has no basis because the advisory board
constituted by the Government of Madhya Pradesh before revising the rates
of wages, considered different factors; such as basic rates of wages, special
allowance, the economic climate of the locality, the general economic
condition of industrial deployment in the area, adequacy of wages etc. The
objections taken by the members of the petitioner before the Advisory Board
were also duly considered. This court cannot sit as an expert appellate body
to substitute its opinion. In the state of M.P. major industries are established
in the industrial areas situated near big cities.
22. It is correct that while fixing or revising the minimum rates of wages
under Section 3(3) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, one of the
considerations is the locality of establishment apart from different factors
like scheduled employment, different classes of work for adults, adolescents,
children and apprentices. As per the aim and object of the Minimum Wages
Act, there have to be minimum rates of wages in the scheduled employment
fixed by the competent authority upon recommendation of Committee, Sub
Committee and Advisory Board. The intention behind this is that there
should not be exploitation of an employee by an employer in respect of
payment of remuneration for his work done in the scheduled employment.
As per the procedure prescribed under the Act, the Government fixed the
minimum wage and revised it from time to time after an interval of five
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7084 -14-
WP No.9401/24, 11921/24 & 12606/24
years after considering the various factors i.e. nature of employment, nature
of work etc. There can be special wages for the establishment looking to its
locality as a special case but it is not mandatory to fix or revise different
minimum wages locality-wise. The government of M.P. has revised the
minimum rates of wages, scheduled establishments wise and category of
employees wise which is the mandate of the Act, no further categorisation is
advisable.
23. As per Section 4 of the Act, minimum rates of wages consist of the
basic rates of wages and special allowance at a rate to be adjusted, at such
interval and in such manner with the variation in the cost of living index
applicable to such workers and as per the definition of the wages, it includes
all remuneration capable of being expressed in terms of money without
adding the value of any house, accommodation, supply of light, water,
medical attendance etc. The worker or employee may have a grievance about
the fixation of minimum wages at different localities. The workers working
in the employment situated in big cities may have a grievance that for them
less minimum wages have been fixed as compared to the workers employed
in small cities. But in the present case, none of the workers or Trade Union
raised any such objection complaining about discrimination or disparity in
the minimum wages. Apart from the minimum rates of wages fixed or
revised by the Government, the establishment/employer is always free to
give wages higher than the minimum wage. If the employer pays higher
wages, than the rates of wages fixed by the Government, then such higher
wages shall be minimum wages in such employment. There is a provision of
recovery of wages from the employer if he pays less amount in scheduled
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7084 -15-
WP No.9401/24, 11921/24 & 12606/24
employment, for which a notification under Section 5 is in force. Therefore,
there is no bar in the Minimum Wages Act to pay higher wages by an
employer to its employee, if in that particular area, the cost of living is so
high and the company runs into a profit. This Minimum Wages Act only
ensures payment of minimum wages to the employee for his survival and to
live a dignified and comfortable life.
24. As per Section 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, 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 and one of
such independent persons shall be appointed the Chairman of the Board. In
the State of Madhya Pradesh the word "such independent persons" has been
substituted by the word "such independent persons, or such officers of
Government". In the present case Labour Commissioner has been made
Chairman of the Board which is an independent member of the board.
Therefore, the entire board after considering the various factors like and cost
of living index, nature of work dearness, cost of living and inflation, decides
the minimum rate of wages payable to the employees working in different
scheduled employment in different capacity.
25. The petitioners have not come up with any specific data and figures to
demonstrate as what should be the difference of wages between two different
localities. They did not produce any material before the Advisory Board nor
before this Court in support of their contention that there should be a
difference in wages for the scheduled employment in different areas of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7084 -16-
WP No.9401/24, 11921/24 & 12606/24
State of Madhya Pradesh. The factor "different localities" in Section 3(3)(a)
(iv) is there for fixing the minimum wages can be considered for a particular
industry situated in a remote locality as a special case. In the case of
Bhikusa Yamasa Kahatriya (supra), the Apex Court upheld the fixation of
different rates of minimum wages for different localities as it does not
violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Government
may consider fixing the different rates of wages for different localities if
materials to that effect are made available but it is not mandatory for the
Government to always fix different minimum rates for different localities.
Looking at the nature of work in the scheduled employment, the State
Government has prescribed the minimum wages for skilled, unskilled, and
semi-skilled workers after considering the cost of living index. Therefore,
there is no illegality if different minimum wages have not been prescribed
locality-wise.
26. Shri Kuldeep Bhargava, learned counsel appearing for Ujjain
Charitable Trust Hospital in WP No.11921/2024 submitted that the
procedure as prescribed under Sections 5 to 9 has not been followed,
therefore, the impugned notifications are liable to be quashed. In support of
his contention, he has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Assam
and Nagaland High Court in the case of Bijoy Krishna Paul Vs. State of
Assam and others reported in 1968 SCC OnLine Gau 47 and the judgment
passed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of U.P. Cinema Exhibitors
Federation vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1977 SCC OnLine All
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7084 -17-
WP No.9401/24, 11921/24 & 12606/24
27. Learned Government Advocate as well as the counsel appearing for
the Union have relied on a judgment passed by the Division of this Court in
the case of Association of Industries, Dewas Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and others reported in 2015 SCC OnLine MP 7543, in which a
number of writ petitions were filed challenging the notification published in
Gazette dated 4.3.2014, 7.3.2014 etc. fixing the minimum rates of wages in
certain employment on various grounds. All the grounds raised in the
petition were considered and decided by framing issues namely (A) the
Constitution of the Advisory Board, (B) Quorum at the meeting of the
Advisory Board, (C) Notice to members for the meeting, (D) Time allowed
by the notification for filing of objections, (E) Personal hearing of
objections, (H) Retrospective implementation of notification. After
considering all the material available on record, the Division Bench
dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the notifications.
28. As per the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, there has to be a
revision of wages after an interval of five years but in the State of Madhya
Pradesh after 2014 the State Government revised the rates after ten years by
increasing 25%, which means 12.5% per five years which cannot be said to
be on the higher side, for which the petitioners-Industrial Associations are
making so much hue and cry. In the last 10 years, the cost of consumable
goods, petrol, diesel, LPG, foodgrains, and essential commodities have
increased manifold. The Government has revised the salary of government
employees by implementing the 6th and 7th Pay Commission and regularly
increasing the wages by way of granting Dearness Allowance. Therefore, the
increase in the minimum rates of wages for workmen @ 25% after 10 years
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7084 -18-
WP No.9401/24, 11921/24 & 12606/24
cannot be said to be on the higher side warranting interference by the High
Court under Art 226 of the Constitution of India. Apart from that, all the
grounds raised by the petitioners have already been answered in the case of
the Association of Industries, Dewas (supra).
29. Therefore, we do not find any merit in these writ petitions.
Accordingly, all three writ petitions are dismissed.
30. Signed order be kept in the file of W.P. No.9401/2024 and a copy
thereof be placed in the file of connected WP Nos.11921/2024 &
12606/2024.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
trilok
