Minimum wages notification cannot be substantively altered through an errata notice correcting only clerical or arithmetical slips.

A substantive change to a minimum wages notification cannot be made through an errata notice where the original fixation was completed after the statutory consultative procedure and consciously adopted one method of fixation. The limited correction power under the Minimum Wages Act extends only to clerical or arithmetical mistakes or accidental slips, and cannot be used to rewrite the basis of the notification. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act did not validate the change because any modification had to follow the same procedure as the original notification. The errata notification was therefore without jurisdiction, and the earlier minimum wages notification remained operative.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Errata Notification could validly correct the earlier minimum wages notification by invoking the power to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes; and whether the Errata Notification was valid in law or liable to be quashed, with restoration of the earlier notification.

Analysis: The earlier notification fixing minimum wages was issued after following the procedure under Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and after consultation, and it consciously adopted the method under Section 4(1)(i) of that Act. On the record, the later Errata Notification did not correct a mere clerical or arithmetical slip, but sought to alter the substantive basis of fixation from Section 4(1)(i) to Section 4(1)(iii). The power under Section 10 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is limited to correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or accidental slips or omissions, and cannot be used to rewrite a conscious policy decision already taken after the prescribed procedure. The reliance on Section 21 of the General Clauses Act did not assist the State, because any modification of the notification had to follow the same statutory procedure as the original fixation.

Conclusion: The Errata Notification was not a valid correction under Section 10 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and was without jurisdiction; the challenge to it succeeded and the earlier notification remained operative.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, the Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016 was quashed, and the earlier minimum wages notification dated 23/24.05.2016 was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A substantive alteration to a minimum wages notification, made after the prescribed consultative procedure and reflecting a conscious decision, cannot be effected by invoking the limited power to correct only clerical or arithmetical mistakes or accidental slips.

---