Mandatory Statutory Procedures for Wage Revision Must Be Followed Despite Repeal of Minimum Wages Act

The petitioner-Union, representing workers in the garment, silk, spinning, and dyeing industries, challenged four final notifications dated 17.01.2023 issued by the Government of Karnataka.

Previously, the government had issued wage revision notifications on 30.12.2017 and a draft for the garment industry on 22.02.2018, both of which were unilaterally withdrawn in 2018.

The Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1520/2019 set aside that withdrawal, revived the 2017 notifications, and directed the state to proceed with the 2018 draft in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 ("Act, 1948").

Instead of following the specific statutory procedures (committee or gazetted proposals), the state issued the impugned 2013 notifications, which the Union alleged provided lower wages than those fixed in 2017 and bypassed procedural safeguards.

During the pendency of the suit, the Code on Wages, 2019 ("Code, 2019") came into effect on 21.11.2025, repealing the Act, 1948.

Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which mandates either a committee-based inquiry or the publication of proposals in the Official Gazette before fixing or revising wages.

Savings Clause in Section 69 of the Code on Wages, 2019, which preserves actions not inconsistent with the Code.

Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which ensures the continuity of legal proceedings and the enforcement of accrued rights as if the repealing Act had not been passed.

Precedent set by the Division Bench in Private Hospital & Nursing Homes Association v. State of Karnataka, upholding the entitlement to 6% interest on delayed minimum wage payments.

The Court found that the State failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 5(1)(b) of the Act, 1948, as it did not publish the wage proposals in the Official Gazette post-revival of the draft notifications by the Division Bench.

The State’s reliance on informal tripartite meetings was insufficient to replace the statutory requirement of a Gazette notification.

Furthermore, the impugned notifications incorrectly used an "inoperative" 2019 notification as a baseline, resulting in logical fallacies and unjustified downward revisions.

On the issue of repeal, the Court harmonized Section 69 of the Code, 2019 with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, concluding that because the workers' rights to have their wages revised according to the law had "crystallized" via previous Court orders, those proceedings were saved and must be concluded under the Act, 1948.

The Court noted that Section 69(3) specifically prevents the repeal from affecting investigations or legal remedies for accrued rights.

The Court held that until new revisions are made, workers under the 2017 notifications are entitled to those rates plus 6% interest p.a. from the due date; the State must finalize the garment industry wages based on the 2018 draft within 6 months using the Act, 1948 procedures; and workers under the 2018 draft are entitled to 6% interest on any upwardly revised wage difference.

The Court clarified that the repeal of the Act, 1948 does not extinguish these claims, as the "right to a lawful revision" was an accrued right saved under the General Clauses Act.

No order as to costs.