KARNATAKA TEXTILE MILLS ASSOCIATION vs GARMENT AND TEXTILE WORKERS UNION (R)

- 1 -
WA No. 1685 of 2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH


AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1685 OF 2026 (L-MW)

BETWEEN:

KARNATAKA TEXTILE MILLS ASSOCIATION
TH TH
NO 64, VASTRA BHAVAN, 4 FLOOR, 4 MAIN,
TH
NEAR 18 CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU – 560 055.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MR.V.SUBASH
(IMPLEADED RESPONDENT No.5 IN
WP No. 18020, 17959 & 17984/2023)
…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. S.NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. HIREMATH PRAVEENKUMAR APPAYYA.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. GARMENT AND TEXTILE WORKERS UNION (R)
(GATWU)
AFFILIATED TO THE ALL INDIA CENTRAL
COUNCIL OF TRADE UNIONS (AICCTU)
ST
NO 17/1, 1 FLOOR, NEAR BMTC BUS STOP,
NEW GUDDADAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 026.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
SMT PRATHIBHA R

2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU – 560 001.











Digitally
signed by
MALA K N
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
WA No. 1685 of 2026


3. THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.

4. THE UNDER SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.

5. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. CLIFTON D’ROZARIO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 IN
CP NO.14187/2026, 14191/26 & 14192/26;
SRI. S.H.RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R2 TO R5)

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO I. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER DATED 03.06.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WP Nos. 18020/2023, 17959/2023 AND
17984/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THOSE WRIT
PETITIONS AND II. PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION
AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 21.09.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN

- 3 -
WA No. 1685 of 2026


CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)

The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by
respondent No.5 against the judgment and order dated
03.06.2026 passed in W.P.No.18020/2023 c/w W.P.Nos.
17959/2023, and 17984/2023. In the impugned judgment, the
learned Single Judge partly allowed the Writ Petitions and
issued certain directions quashing the Notifications dated
17.01.2023 in respect of three scheduled employments,
namely, (i) Cloth Dyeing and Printing Industry, (ii) Textile (Silk)
Industry, and (iii) Spinning Mills Industry.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to
as per their rankings before the learned Single Judge.

I. Facts Of The Petitioner:
3. The petitioner–Garment and Textile Workers Union
(R) is a registered trade union affiliated with the All India
Central Council of Trade Unions ('AICCTU'), representing
workers employed in textile, cloth dyeing, silk, spinning mills,
and allied industries across Karnataka.

- 4 -
WA No. 1685 of 2026


4.
The minimum wages for the three scheduled
employments viz., Cloth Dyeing & Printing, Textile (Silk), and
Spinning Mills were last fixed in 2014. Under Section 3(1)(b) of
the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 ( 'Act of 1948' ), wage revision
was required within five years.

5.
In April 2017, the State Government issued Draft
Notifications under Section 5(1)(b) of Act of 1948, proposing
revised minimum wages for the three industries. Objections
were submitted, and on 06.12.2017, the Minimum Wages
Advisory Board held deliberations. Consequently, on
30.12.2017, the State Government issued three final
Notifications revising minimum wages for the said three
industries.

6.
Before these Notifications could be given effect to,
the State Government issued an order dated 22.03.2018
withdrawing the three final Notifications dated 30.12.2017.
Trade unions challenged the withdrawal in W.P. No.
18621/2018, which was dismissed, leading to Writ Appeal No.
1520/2019. During the pendency of those proceedings, the
State Government issued Notifications dated 31.10.2019

- 5 -
WA No. 1685 of 2026


revising wages based on a Tripartite Committee and TECSOK
study.

7.
By judgment dated 13.04.2020 in
W.A.No.1520/2019, a Division Bench of this Court set aside the
withdrawal order dated 22.03.2018 as ultra vires , revived the
three Final Notifications dated 30.12.2017, declared the
subsequent Notification dated 31.10.2019 as inoperative, and
reserved liberty to the State Government to undertake revision
of minimum wages fixed under the revived notifications in
accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1948. This
judgment attained finality upon dismissal of SLP(C) No.
8240/2020 by the Supreme Court on 17.07.2020.

8.
Thereafter, the State Government issued four
Notifications bearing No. KE 2 LWA 2023 dated 17.01.2023,
purporting to revise minimum wages for the three industries by
enhancing rates by 14% over the 31.10.2019 rates, with effect
from 30.12.2017.

9.
Aggrieved, the petitioner-Union filed W.P. Nos.
18020/2023, 17959/2023, and 17984/2023, seeking to quash
the Notifications dated 17.01.2023, enforcement of wages
under the 30.12.2017 notifications along with arrears and 6%

- 6 -
WA No. 1685 of 2026


interest, and a direction to fix minimum wages on par with
other scheduled employments.

II. Facts of the Respondents:

10. The State Government, in its statement of
objections, maintained that the revision of minimum wages
under the Notifications dated 17.01.2023 was conducted in
compliance with statutory provisions. The State urged that
following the reconstituted Advisory Board on 16.11.2021,
meetings were held on 11.01.2022 and 06.09.2022 involving
all stakeholders, and in absence of a consensus, the
Government exercised its quasi-legislative discretion.


11. Respondent No. 5 - Karnataka Textile Mills
Association contended that the procedure under Section 5(1)(b)
of the Act of 1948 was fully completed in 2017 prior to the
withdrawal. The Division Bench in W.A. No. 1520/2019 merely
set aside the withdrawal order and preserved the Government's
power to revise. The appellant emphasized that extensive
material including the TECSOK report analyzing financial
capacity, production, profitability, and South Indian wage
structures was evaluated during stakeholder consultations.

- 7 -
WA No. 1685 of 2026


III. Order in the Writ Petitions:

12. By the common judgment and order dated
03.06.2026, the learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ
petitions and quashed the impugned Notifications dated
17.01.2023. The learned Single Judge held that post the
Division Bench judgment dated 13.04.2020 in Writ Appeal No.
1520/2019, no fresh draft proposal was published in the Official
Gazette as mandated under Section 5(1)(b) of the Act, 1948.
The Court observed that the Notifications dated 17.01.2023
were fundamentally flawed because they adopted the earlier
Notification dated 31.10.2019 which had already been declared
inoperative by the Division Bench as the baseline yardstick for
computing a 14% wage enhancement. Furthermore, the Court
noted that the revised rates appeared lower than those under
the 30.12.2017 Notifications without setting forth compelling
reasons for such downward revision.


13. Consequently, the learned Single Judge declared
the workers entitled to receive minimum wages in terms of the
revived Notifications dated 30.12.2017 pending a fresh
statutory revision. The employers were directed to pay interest
at the rate of 6% per annum on unpaid differential wages from
the date they fell due until actual payment. The appropriate

- 8 -
WA No. 1685 of 2026


Government was directed to conclude a fresh wage revision
exercise within six months, with a specific stipulation that the
effective date for any fresh revision could not precede
13.04.2020. The Court has rejected the contention that the
proceedings had rendered infructuous upon the repeal of the
Act of 1948 by the Code on Wages, 2019 with effect from
21.11.2025, holding that accrued statutory rights and pending
judicial proceedings remained fully preserved under Section
69(3) of the Code of 2019 read with Section 6 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897.

IV. Grounds of Writ Appeal:

14. Aggrieved by the common judgment, the
appellant–Karnataka Textile Mills Association–has preferred the
present appeal, assailing the conclusions of the learned Single
Judge on several primary grounds. The appellant contends that
the learned Single Judge misconstrued the direction of the
Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1520/2019 by holding that a
fresh Gazette publication under Section 5(1)(b) of the Act 1948
was mandatory. It is urged that the statutory process under
Section 5(1)(b) of the Act 1948 had already been fully
completed in 2017, prior to the withdrawal order and the
Division Bench's mandate to proceed "in accordance with the

- 9 -
WA No. 1685 of 2026


provisions of the Act" permitted the Government to build upon
existing consultative materials rather than initiating the process
de novo .


15. The appellant further submits that reverting
wage liability to the 30.12.2017 Notifications creates an
oppressive and impermissible retrospective financial burden
spanning nearly a decade of arrears along with 6% interest. It
is contended that this direction deprives employers of the
benefit of a fresh revision based on current industry paying
capacity and converts a provisional judicial stop-gap measure
into an irreducible historical liability. Additionally, the appellant
argues that utilizing the 31.10.2019 rates as a starting
reference point was a valid expert mathematical methodology
informed by the TECSOK study rather than a jurisdictional
defect that would invalidate the notifications.


16. On the question of interest, the appellant
asserts that the direction to pay 6% interest per annum is
without jurisdiction, as no specific prayer for interest was made
in the writ petitions, no Court-imposed restraint prevented
payments, and employers had complied with prevailing
Notifications in good faith. Lastly, regarding the effect of repeal,

- 10 -
WA No. 1685 of 2026


the appellant contends that upon the repeal of the Act of 1948
with effect from 21.11.2025, under Section 69(1) of the Code
of 2019, the 1948 Act ceased to exist as an operational source
of power. Consequently, the appellant urges that any direction
requiring the Government to re-exercise statutory powers
under a repealed law or under the "Payment of Wages Act,
1948" is legally impossible and void.


17. We have heard Shri Udaya Holla, learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant; Smt. Maitreyi Krishnan and Shri
Clifton D'Rozario, learned counsel for respondent No. 1; Shri
S.H. Raghavendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for
respondents Nos. 2 to 5; and carefully perused the records.

V. Point for Consideration:

18. The point that arises for our consideration is:
"Whether the common order dated 03.06.2026
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos.
18020/2023, 17959/2023, and 17984/2023 calls
for interference in this appeal?"


VI. Reasoning and Analysis:

19. The core challenge in this appeal is directed
against the finding of the learned Single Judge that post the
judgment dated 13.04.2020 in W.A. No. 1520/2019, the State

- 11 -
WA No. 1685 of 2026


Government was bound to comply with the statutory procedure
under Section 5 of the Act of 1948, and that the failure to
publish Gazette proposals under Section 5(1)(b) of the Act,
1948 vitiated the Notifications dated 17.01.2023. In our
considered view, this finding requires no interference.


20. The Division Bench in W.A. No. 1520/2019
explicitly set aside the withdrawal order dated 22.03.2018,
revived the four final Notifications dated 30.12.2017, and held
that while the Government possessed the power to revise
minimum wages, such revision must strictly conform to "the
provisions of the said Act, 1948".


21. The contention that internal meetings of the
Advisory Board on 11.01.2022 and stakeholder discussions on
06.09.2022 constituted substantial compliance cannot be
accepted. When the State purports to exercise power under
Section 5(1)(b) of the Act, 1948, the requirement of publishing
proposals in the Official Gazette to invite public objections is
mandatory. Subsequent participation in meetings cannot cure
the absence of a statutory Gazette Notification.

- 12 -
WA No. 1685 of 2026



22. A further fundamental flaw in the Notifications
dated 17.01.2023 is that they computed revised wages by
applying a 14% hike over the rates contained in the Notification
dated 31.10.2019. The Notification dated 31.10.2019 had been
declared inoperative by the Division Bench in W.A. No.
1520/2019. An inoperative Notification cannot be resuscitated
to serve as the baseline yardstick for statutory wage
determination.


23. The learned Single Judge correctly recognized
that while the State possesses the power under Section 5(2) to
revise wages upward or downward, any downward revision
relative to revived Notifications must disclose logical and
compelling reasons. The quashing of the 17.01.2023
Notifications was primarily founded on procedural non-
compliance and reliance on an inoperative baseline.


24. Regarding the effective date, the learned Single
Judge did not pre-determine final wages but directed that fresh
determinations be made prospectively or from a date post-
13.04.2020. This safeguard prevents the State from issuing
retrospective Notifications that undermine the Division Bench's
revival of the 30.12.2017 Notifications.

- 13 -
WA No. 1685 of 2026



25. The challenge to the direction for payment of
interest at 6% per annum is similarly devoid of merit. The
entitlement of workers to receive minimum wages under the
revived 30.12.2017 Notifications, together with 6% interest on
unpaid differences, was explicitly affirmed by the Division
Bench in paragraph 90 of W.A. No. 1520/2019 and confirmed
by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No. 9268/2020. That
determination has attained finality upon the dismissal of SLP(C)
No. 8240/2020.


26. On the question of the repeal of the Act, 1948 with
effect from 21.11.2025 by the Code of 2019, the learned Single
Judge correctly applied Section 69(3) of the Code of 2019 read
with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Rights and
liabilities that accrued under the revived 30.12.2017
Notifications, as well as pending judicial proceedings concerning
those rights, are fully saved. The direction to complete the
exercise is not an initiation of a new proceeding under a
repealed law, but the completion of an ongoing, court-
mandated process.


27. The reference in clause (xiii) of the operative order
to the "Payment of Wages Act, 1948" is a typographical

- 14 -
WA No. 1685 of 2026


misdescription for the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Read as a
whole, the judgment unambiguously pertains to minimum wage
fixation under the Act of 1948, and a minor clerical error does
not affect its substantive validity.


28. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the common
judgment of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any
factual or legal infirmity warranting interference in appeal.
ORDER
(i) The appeal preferred by appellant against
the common order dated 03.06.2026 in W.P.
Nos. 18020/2023, 17959/2023, and
dismissed
17984/2023 is ;
(ii) The common order dated 03.06.2026 in
W.P. Nos. 18020/2023, 17959/2023, and
confirmed
17984/2023 is hereby .

Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and
stand disposed of.

Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE

Sd/-
(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
JUDGE

BVK