Independent persons under Minimum Wages Act can include government officers; procedural irregularity in advisory process need not invalidate notification.

Government officers are not excluded per se from appointment as "independent persons" on wage committees and advisory boards under the Minimum Wages Act, because the statutory language contrasts them with employer and employee representatives rather than with Government servants. The inclusion of such officers is therefore not invalid merely on that ground, though independence may require scrutiny where the Government has a direct interest in the scheduled employment. An irregularly appointed sub-committee and the board's reliance on its report did not vitiate the minimum wages notification, since the board's role under section 5(1)(a) was advisory and the irregularity did not go to the root of the Government's final decision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Government officers could be appointed as independent persons on the wage committee and the advisory board under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. (ii) Whether the advisory board's consideration of the report of an irregularly appointed sub-committee vitiated the minimum wages notification.

Issue (i): Whether Government officers could be appointed as independent persons on the wage committee and the advisory board under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under sections 5, 7 and 9 permits the appropriate Government to appoint committees, sub-committees and an advisory board for advising on fixation or revision of minimum wages. The expression "independent persons" in section 9 is used in contrast to representatives of employers and employees, and does not by itself exclude Government servants. Their appointment is not invalid merely because they are Government officers, though their independence may have to be examined in an appropriate case where the Government is directly interested in the scheduled employment.

Conclusion: The constitution of the wage committee and the advisory board was not invalid on the ground that Government officers were included as independent persons.

Issue (ii): Whether the advisory board's consideration of the report of an irregularly appointed sub-committee vitiated the minimum wages notification.

Analysis: The advisory board had no authority to appoint a sub-committee including persons who were not members of the board and its reliance on that report was irregular. However, the procedure followed was under section 5(1)(a), where consultation with the advisory board was not mandatory. The board's recommendation remained advisory in character, and the Government's final notification was not shown to be rendered unlawful merely because the board had taken into account the sub-committee's report. The irregularity was not of such a nature as to nullify the Government's decision or the consequential proceedings.

Conclusion: The notification fixing minimum wages was not vitiated by the advisory board's irregular use of the sub-committee's report.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the notification failed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the employers' writ petition stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Minimum Wages Act, Government officers are not excluded per se from the category of independent persons on statutory wage bodies, and a procedural irregularity in the advisory process does not invalidate the Government's final notification unless it goes to the root of the decision-making process.

---