Supreme Court Quashes Errata Notification on Minimum Wages — Restores Original Notification. The Errata Notification was found to be issued without jurisdiction as there was no clerical error in the original notification which was validly issued.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court of Bombay at Goa, challenging the validity of an Errata Notification issued by the State of Goa on 14.07.2016, which modified the earlier notification dated 23/24.05.2016 that fixed minimum wages. The original notification was issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, determining minimum wages inclusive of a special allowance. The State claimed a clerical error in the original notification, which was corrected by the Errata Notification. The appellant contended that the original notification was valid and issued after following the required procedures, including consultation with the Minimum Wage Advisory Board. The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, particularly Sections 4 and 10, and concluded that the Errata Notification was issued without jurisdiction as it attempted to correct a conscious decision made by the State Government. The Court emphasized that there was no clerical or arithmetical mistake to warrant such a correction. Consequently, the Court quashed the Errata Notification and restored the original notification, allowing the appeal without costs.

Headnote

A) Labour Law - Minimum Wages - Errata Notification Validity - Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Sections 4, 5, 10 - The Supreme Court held that the Errata Notification was issued without jurisdiction as there was no clerical or arithmetical mistake in the original notification, which was issued after due procedure and consultation with the Advisory Board. The Court restored the original notification determining minimum wages including special allowance (Paras 10-11).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016 correcting the earlier notification dated 23/24.05.2016 was valid.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016, and restored the original notification dated 23/24.05.2016 determining minimum wages including special allowance.

Law Points

  • Minimum wages
  • Errata notification
  • Clerical error
  • Jurisdiction
  • Consultation with Advisory Board
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (SC) (05) 146

Civil Appeal No. 2982 of 2022

2022-05-10

M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna

Mayank Pandey, Abhay Anil Anturkar

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh

State of Goa & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to the validity of an Errata Notification modifying minimum wages.

Remedy Sought

Restoration of the original notification fixing minimum wages.

Filing Reason

The appellant contended that the Errata Notification was invalid and that the original notification was properly issued.

Previous Decisions

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Errata Notification.

Issues

Validity of the Errata Notification Nature of clerical errors under the Minimum Wages Act

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the original notification was valid and issued after due procedure. The respondent claimed a clerical error was corrected by the Errata Notification.

Ratio Decidendi

The Errata Notification was invalid as it attempted to correct a conscious decision made under the Minimum Wages Act without any clerical or arithmetical mistake.

Judgment Excerpts

The Errata Notification was 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.

Procedural History

The appellant filed a writ petition against the Errata Notification, which was dismissed by the High Court, leading to the present appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Minimum Wages Act, 1948: 3, 4, 5, 10
  • General Clauses Act: 21
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Goa Allows Extension of Time to File Written Statement in Motor Accident Claim Petition — Order 8 Rule 1 CPC Not Applicable. The court held that Rule 300 of the Goa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991 does not include Order 8 Rule 1 ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals Challenging Circular Denying Export Incentives to Purchasers from 100% EOU. Clarification That Exports Through EOUs Are Ineligible Under VKGUY Scheme Is Valid and Not Contrary to Foreign Trade Policy.