Minimum Wages Act - Only Clerical Or Arithmetical Mistakes In Order Fixing Minimum Wages Can Be Corrected U/Sec 10 : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that only the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order fixing or revising minimum rates of wages can be corrected by invoking Section 10 of the Minimum Wages Act.

The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna quashed the Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016 issued by the State of Goa modifying its earlier notification dated 23/24.05.2016 by which it fixed the rates of minimum wages in various sectors.

The court allowed the appeal filed by a labour union ( Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh) against a judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Goa which had dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the validity of the Errata Notification.

Before the Apex Court, the appellant- writ petitioner contended 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). 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, it was contended. The State contended that there was a mistake while issuing the notification dated 23/24.05.2016 and instead of clause (iii) clause (i) was mentioned and therefore, by the subsequent Errata Notification, the same has been corrected.

The court noted that in this case 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...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.

The court added that as per Section 10, only the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order fixing or revising minimum rates of wages can be corrected.

"What can be said to be an arithmetical or clerical error has been dealt with and considered by this Court in the case of Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (supra). It is observed and 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."

The court also observed that even by applying Section 21 of the General Clauses Act and assuming that the State was having power to amend, vary or rescind the notification, in that case also such power can be exercised in a like manner, namely after following the procedure, which was followed while issuing the original notification.

"In the present case, assuming that the State was having the power to amend, vary or rescind the notification in exercise of powers under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, in that case also, when the earlier notification dated 23/24.05.2016 was issued after following the due procedure as required under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, 1948, the same procedure ought to have been followed even while varying and/or modifying the notification. Hence, 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."

Allowing the appeal, the bench held that the Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016 was wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the relevant provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948

Case details

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh vs State of Goa | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 466 | CA 2982 OF 2022 | 10 May 2022

Coram: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna

Counsel: Adv Mayank Pandey for appellant, Adv Abhay Anil Anturkar for State

Headnotes

Minimum Wages Act, 1948 ; Section 10 - Only the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order fixing or revising minimum rates of wages can be corrected - 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.  (Para 7.1-7.2)

Minimum Wages Act, 1948 ; Section 3-5,10 - Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016 issued by the State of Goa modifying/correcting its earlier notification dated 23/24.05.2016 by which it fixed the rates of minimum wages in various sectors - Wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the relevant provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - 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. 

General Clauses Act, 1897 ; Section 21 - Assuming that the State was having power to amend, vary or rescind the notification, in that case also such power can be exercised in a like manner, namely after following the procedure, which was followed while issuing the original notification. (Para 9)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment