The court’s legal analysis on correcting clerical mistakes in minimum wage notifications is crucial in maintaining procedural integrity. This case delves into the nuances of rectifying errors in official notifications and emphasizes the need for adherence to statutory procedures. The judgment also highlights the significance of deliberate decision-making processes in administrative actions. Let’s explore the intricacies of this case and its implications on legal procedures.
Facts
- Appellant challenged the validity of Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016 issued by the State of Goa.
- Impugned judgment of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.
- State of Goa initially fixed minimum rates of wages including basic rates and special allowance in a notification dated 23/24.05.2016.
- The Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016 changed the calculation method to an all-inclusive rate, excluding special allowance.
- Resulting in no special allowance being included in the minimum wages according to the Errata Notification.
- The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court due to dissatisfaction with the errata notification dated 14.07.2016.
- The State Government is allowed under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1948 to fix minimum wages in three different ways.
- The Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016 corrected the earlier notification by substituting clause (i) with clause (iii).
- The State Government claimed that the mistake in the earlier notification was rectified through the Errata Notification.
- The High Court accepted the State’s explanation and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.
Also Read: Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence in Murder Case
Arguments
- Reliance placed on Section 21 of the General Clauses Act to argue that there was no clerical mistake in the initial notification
- Contended that once a conscious decision was made, it cannot be considered a clerical error
- Submission that the High Court erred in finding a mistake in the first notification dated 23/24.05.2016
- Emphasis on the conscious decision-making process leading to the determination of minimum wages
- Reference to the notification dated 23/24.05.2016 to show the deliberate decision taken in fixing minimum wages
- Reliance on the decision of the court in Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa regarding arithmetical and clerical errors
- The notification initially mentioned clause (i) of Section 4(1) by mistake
- The mistake was corrected using the powers under Section 10 of the Act, 1948
- Section 10 allows for corrections of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in minimum wage orders
- The respondent State’s counsel supports the High Court’s decision and the Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016
- The High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition was justified as clause (iii) of Section 4(1) was under consideration during the draft notification
Also Read: Challenging Legal Presumptions in Negotiable Instrument Cases
Analysis
- Notification dated 23/24.05.2016 was issued after due application of mind and consultation with the Minimum Wage Advisory Board.
- There was no clerical or arithmetical mistake in mentioning clause (i) in the notification.
- The Final Notification for minimum wages was issued after objections and representations were considered, including demands for special allowances like Variable Dearness Allowance.
- The Errata Notification issued on 14.07.2016 did not specify under which provision of the law it was issued and failed to follow the same procedure as the original notification.
- It is emphasized that the Errata Notification could not have modified the original notification using powers under Section 10 of the Act, 1948.
- The notification dated 23/24.05.2016 determined minimum wages including basic rates of wages and special allowance, in accordance with the Act.
- Issuing an Errata Notification in exercise of powers under Section 10 of the Act, 1948 would require following the same procedural requirements as the original notification.
- An error arising from accidental slip or omission was defined as a mistake due to careless or inadvertent action, in contrast to a deliberate decision.
- Minimum rates of wages are fixed or revised by the appropriate Government in respect of scheduled employments under Section 3.
- The minimum rate of wages may consist of a basic rate of wages and a special allowance, or a basic rate of wages with or without a cost of living allowance and concessions in respect of essential commodities.
- The cost of living allowance and cash value of concessions are computed by the competent authority at specified intervals and in accordance with directions from the appropriate Government.
- Errors in minimum rates of wages orders can be corrected by the appropriate Government through notification in the Official Gazette.
- Notifications for correction of errors must be placed before the Advisory Board for information.
- Arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation
- Clerical mistake is a mistake in writing or typing
- The Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016 was deemed to be without jurisdiction
- It was considered contrary to the relevant provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948
- The High Court should have set aside the Errata Notification
Also Read: Legal Analysis Critique in High Court’s Quashing Order
Decision
- High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition challenging the Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016.
- High Court accepted the State’s claim of clerical mistake, which was subsequently corrected by the Errata Notification.
- Impugned judgment of the High Court is quashed and set aside.
- The Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016 is quashed and set aside.
- The earlier notification dated 23/24.05.2016 revising and determining the minimum wages is restored.
- Present appeal is allowed.
- No order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Case Title: GOMANTAK MAZDOOR SANGH Vs. THE STATE OF GOA (2022 INSC 546)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002982-002982 / 2022
