Kerala High Court
A.N. Mohan vs The State Of Kerala on 10 December, 2025
2025:KER:95139
WP(C) NO. 45693 OF 2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TH
WEDNESDAY, THE 10 DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 45693 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
A.N. MOHAN,
AGED 72 YEARS
PRESIDENT, ALL KERALA CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS
ASSOCIATION, CHEMIST BHAVAN, VIVEKANANDA ROAD,
OPPOSITE SOUTH RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682016
BY ADVS.
SMT.P.USHAKUMARI
SHRI.K.B.DAYAL
SHRI.HARIKRISHNA DAYAL K.
SMT.PALLAVI K.B.
SMT.DEEPA. P.R.
RESPONDENT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
LABOUR AND SKILLS (E) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE SECRETARY,
MINIMUM WAGES ADVISORY BOARD, THOZHIL BHAVAN,
STATUE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, INDIAN, PIN
- 695001
BY ADVS.
SMT. O.M. SHALINA - DSGI
SMT.SABEENA P. ISMAIL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.12.2024 AND HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:95139
WP(C) NO. 45693 OF 2024 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner claims to be the President of the Kerala Chemists and Druggists Association. The petitioner is before this court challenging Ext.P1 notification issued by the Government of Kerala in terms of the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 1948 Act) read with the provisions of Section 5(2) of the 1948 Act, prescribing minimum wages for different categories of employees employed in medical shops in the State of Kerala.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Ext.P1 notification cannot be sustained in law. It is submitted that, under the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the 1948 Act, while issuing notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the 1948 Act, the Government should have regard to the matters set out in Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the 1948 Act and should prescribe different rates of wages for (i) different scheduled employments, (ii) different classes of work in the same scheduled employment, (iii) adults, adolescents, children and apprentices, (iv) different localities, etc. It is pointed out that minimum rates of wages have to be fixed by the hour, by the day, by the month or by 2025:KER:95139 WP(C) NO. 45693 OF 2024 3 such other larger wage period as may be prescribed. It is submitted that in the facts of this case, the constitution of the committees for the purposes of making recommendations to the Government is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the 1948 Act. It is pointed out that the so-called independent members of the committee were not independent persons having knowledge of the industry. It is submitted that, going by the Division Bench judgment of this court in Kerala Non-Banking Finance Companies Welfare Association v. State of Kerala, 2019 (4) KLT 977, the representatives of the industry must be the persons who actually have knowledge of the industry. It is submitted that this court in Punchiri Boat Service Limited, Aleppey v. State, 1955 KLT 686 has set out the manner in which the committees must be constituted under the provisions of Section 9 of the 1948 Act. It is submitted that when the constitution of the committee is not in accordance with the provisions, the failure to do so will render the recommendations of the committee invalid. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Vasudevan and others v. State of Kerala, 1959 KLT 904 to contend that, while the fixation of minimum wages in respect 2025:KER:95139 WP(C) NO. 45693 OF 2024 4 of any scheduled employment by the appropriate Government is no doubt, an administrative act which is final and as such not subject to judicial review on the question of quantum of minimum wages fixed, it is open to the petitioner to contend that the methodology adopted by the Government for the fixation of the minimum wage was not in accordance with the provisions of the 1948 Act. It is submitted that the committee has obviously not considered the matter in a proper way, and the contentions of the industry were not considered while the committee submitted its recommendations to the Government. It is submitted that the petitioner association was not given any representation in sub-committees or on the advisory board. It is submitted that the finding in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kerala Private Hospital Assn. v. State of Kerala, (2018) 1 SCC 98, which requires that the employers and employees' interests must be represented on the committee, in equal numbers, has been violated by the Government in the facts of the present case. It is submitted that in Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation v. Tiffin's Barytes Asbestos & Paints Ltd., (1985) 3 SCC 594 it has been found that persons not involved in the industry could not be appointed to the committee constituted in terms of the provisions 2025:KER:95139 WP(C) NO. 45693 OF 2024 5 contained in Section 9 of the 1948 Act. It is pointed out that, in Ext.P1 notification, it has been clarified that the minimum wages as prescribed in the notification should be provided to sales representatives of Allopathy, Homeopathy and Ayurveda in medicine distribution category, if they canvass purchase orders for not less than Rs. 6 lakh per month and in the distribution of surgical equipment category, if they canvass purchase orders for not less than Rs. 4 lakh per month in other categories. It is submitted that the stipulation that if a sufficient number of purchase orders have not been canvassed, minimum wages will be applicable in proportion is also beyond the competence of the Government in terms of the provisions contained in the 1948 Act.
3. The learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has not made out any ground for interference with Ext.P1 notification. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed this writ petition in his individual capacity, claiming to represent members of the Chemists and Druggists Association. It is submitted that no authorisation has been produced by the petitioner authorising him to file a writ petition on behalf of the Chemists and Druggists Association, which, according to the averments in the reply affidavit 2025:KER:95139 WP(C) NO. 45693 OF 2024 6 filed by the petitioner, has more than 12,000 members. It is submitted that, if any writ petition is to be filed by or on behalf of an Association, the list of the members of the association has to be produced in this court, and the court fee has also to be paid for every member. Without prejudice to the contention regarding maintainability, it is submitted that the Government has followed every procedure (Section 5 and 9 of 1948 Act) contemplated by the provisions of the 1948 Act in issuing Ext.P1 notification. It is submitted that by Ext.R1(a) notification published on 29.08.2009, employment in medical shops was included as part of the schedule referred to in Section 27 of the 1948 Act. It is submitted that since the industry is included as part of the schedule, it is competent for the Government to fix minimum wages in respect of employment in the said industry. It is submitted that, as far as employment in medical shops is concerned, the minimum wages were earlier fixed in the year 2017, whereas the provisions of the 1948 Act indicate that there must be a review of minimum wages every five years. It is pointed out that the committees were constituted by the State Government under Section 9 of the 1948 Act to hold inquiries and advise the Government in the matter of minimum rates of wages 2025:KER:95139 WP(C) NO. 45693 OF 2024 7 payable to employees in the medical shops in the State. It is submitted that each of the sub-committees and the advisory board consist of an equal number of employees and employer representatives. It is submitted that one of the committees conducted public hearings at various places and gathered information from employees, employers and their organisations before the formulation of advice to the Government. The learned Government Pleader referred to the averments in the counter affidavit regarding the members on the sub-committees appointed in terms of Section 9 of the 1948 Act to contend that the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sub- committees had not been constituted in terms of the provisions contained in the 1948 Act is untenable.
4. It is submitted that, though the provisions of the 1948 Act do not contemplate any such procedure, to ensure fairness, the Government issued a draft notification (Ext.P2) and invited objections from all categories of persons who might be affected by the issuance of the notification before issuing the final notification (Ext.P1). It is submitted that the Government nominees on the sub- committees are clearly independent members, as held by the 2025:KER:95139 WP(C) NO. 45693 OF 2024 8 Supreme Court in Tiffin's Barytes Asbestos & Paints Ltd. (supra), as also in State of A.P. v. Narayana Velur Beedi Mfg. Factory, (1973) 4 SCC 178. It is submitted that this question was also considered by this court in W.P (C) 35768 of 2023 (Qualified Private Medical Practitioners Association v. State of Kerala). It is submitted that the same judgment of this court also holds that an association of persons like the association which the petitioner claims to represent cannot be included as a member of the committee. The learned Government Pleader also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kerala Private Hospital Assn.(supra) to contend that the rules framed under the 1948 Act do not provide for any specific manner in which representation should be provided to employers on the committee constituted in terms of Section 9 of the 1948 Act. It is submitted that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the 1948 Act that there should be different wages fixed for different localities etc., cannot be accepted. It is submitted that this question was considered by a Division Bench of this court in Cochin Mazdoor Sangh v. Bobby, 2006 (3) KLT 317, where this court has taken the view 2025:KER:95139 WP(C) NO. 45693 OF 2024 9 that merely because there is an enabling provision [sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the 1948 Act] enabling the Government to fix different rates of wages for different localities does not mean that a minimum wage notification must always fix different rate of wages for different localities. The learned Government Pleader also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Excel Wear v. Union of India, (1978) 4 SCC 224, and the judgment of this Court in Malayalam Plantations Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 1975 KHC 347, to emphasise the importance of the fixation of minimum wages and specifically stated that the minimum wages represent the minimum possible wages required for an employee to live. Reliance was also placed on the judgment in Unichoyi v. State of Kerala, AIR 1962 SC 12, to contend that the economic condition of the employer has no relevance in the fixation of minimum wages.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out any case for the grant of the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. Firstly, it must be noticed that the petitioner, who claims to be the President of an association that 2025:KER:95139 WP(C) NO. 45693 OF 2024 10 has more than 12,000 members, has not produced any list of members and has also not paid the court fee for each of the members. On this short ground, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may also be treated as an individual challenging the provisions of Ext.P1 notification, this Court has proceeded to consider the contentions raised by both sides on the merits of the matter.
6. The first contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, going by the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the 1948 Act, the Government, having regard to the factors set out in that provision, must issue a notification fixing different rates of wages. A reading of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the 1948 Act does not indicate that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner can be accepted by this Court. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the 1948 Act is an enabling provision enabling the Government to issue a minimum wage notification fixing different rates of wages taking into account the factors mentioned therein. There is nothing in sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the 1948 Act to suggest that the Government is bound to issue a notification fixing 2025:KER:95139 WP(C) NO. 45693 OF 2024 11 different rates of wages. Further, this contention has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Cochin Mazdoor Sangh (supra), where this Court has categorically held that sub- section (3) of Section 3 of the 1948 Act is only an enabling provision, and the provision does not indicate that the same rate of minimum wages should not be fixed across the State. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not given proper representation on the advisory committee cannot be accepted. It is clear from the judgment of this Court in W.P(C)No.35768 of 2023 that an association cannot seek inclusion on the committee. Further, the Supreme Court in Kerala Private Hospital Assn. (supra) has held that the rules framed under the 1948 Act, namely the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950, do not prescribe as to who should be nominated as a representative of the employer on the committee. The counter affidavit filed by the 1 st respondent clearly gives details of the members appointed by the Government to the committee, and the petitioner has no contention that these persons do not represent the industry. Even if the contention of the petitioner that a person not connected with the industry has been appointed to the committee is accepted, in the light of the law laid 2025:KER:95139 WP(C) NO. 45693 OF 2024 12 down in Tiffin's Barytes Asbestos & Paints Ltd. (supra), the contention is without merit. It is clear from the said judgment that even Government employees can be nominated as independent persons on the committee constituted in terms of Section 9 of the 1948 Act. It is further clear that nomination is a prerogative of the Government, and it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to contend that the committees were not constituted by including members of the choice of the petitioner. It is also evident from the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Vasudevan and Others (supra) that the fixation of minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled employment by the appropriate Government is an administrative act which is final and not subject to judicial review on the question of the quantum of wages fixed. In Tiffin's Barytes Asbestos & Paints Ltd. (supra) it was further held:-
"We also wish to emphasise that notifications fixing minimum wages are not to be lightly interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of some irregularities in the constitution of the committee or in the procedure adopted by the committee. It must be remembered that the committee acts only as a recommendatory body and the final notification fixing 2025:KER:95139 WP(C) NO. 45693 OF 2024 13 minimum wages has to be made by the Government. A notification fixing minimum wages, in a country where wages are already minimal should not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution except on the most substantial of grounds. The legislation is a social welfare legislation undertaken to further the Directive Principles of State Policy and action taken pursuant to it cannot be struck down on mere technicalities."
Having found that the procedure adopted by the Government in issuing Ext.P1 notification is not ultra vires the provisions of the 1948 Act, I find no ground made out for interference with Ext.P1. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
acd/ats
2025:KER:95139
WP(C) NO. 45693 OF 2024 14
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 45693 OF 2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER (P)
NO.85/2024/LBR DATED 23.11.2024 ISSUED
BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.LBRD-
E1/17/2023-LBRD DATED 29.04.2023 ISSUED
BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
14.06.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
14.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE MINIMUM WAGES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
23.09.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED
VIDE G.O(MS) No.12//2009/LBR DATED
29/08/2009
EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED
31/01/2023 OF THE MINIMUM WAGES
ADVISORY BOARD
EXHIBIT R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
ADVISORY BOARD VIDE LETTER DATED
09/10/2024
EXHIBIT R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER No.LBRD-
E1/17/2023-LBRD DATED 17/06/2023
EXHIBIT R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING
DATED 23/09/2023 OF THE ADVISORY BOARD
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P6 True copy of the registration
certificate issued by the Registrar of
Societies dated 27.03.1973
Exhibit P7 True copy of the list of office bearers
of the association for the year 2022-
2025 dated 15.12.2024
Exhibit P8 True copy of the notification dated
06/02/2025 issued by the Chief Medical
Officer, Govt. Ayurveda Hospital, Aluva
Exhibit P9 True copy of the notice of indefinite
strike
2025:KER:95139
WP(C) NO. 45693 OF 2024 15