Once the minimum wages were revised and determined, which included the basic rates of wages and the special allowance as per Section 4(1)(i) of the Act, 1948, thereafter it cannot be said that there was any clerical and/or arithmetical mistake in mentioning clause (i)
Recently the Supreme Court in the case of Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh v. State of Goa and Another observed that only clerical or arithmetical mistakes towards fixing or revising minimum rates of wages can be corrected under Section 10 of the Minimum Wages Act.
The Division Bench comprise Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna relied on its decision in the case of Master Construction Company (P) Limited v. State of Orissa and Another (1966) to observe that arithmetical or clerical error shall include mistake in calculation or a mistake in writing or typing.
Further the Court explaining the ambit of Section 10, said that
“It is observed and held that an arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation; a clerical mistake is a mistake in writing or typing. An error arising out of or occurring from an accidental slip or omission is an error due to a careless or inadvertent mistake or omission unintentionally made,”.
The Lower court Bombay High Courtwhich had dismissed the appellant’s challenge to the validity of the Errata Notification issued by the State of Goa modifying or correcting its earlier notification by which the State had fixed the rates of minimum wages in various sectors.
The Supreme Court while hearing an appeal dismissed the lower court orderd under Section 10 of the 1948 Act, the case against aIt was the case of the respondent-State that there was a clerical error or mistake while issuing the earlier notification, which has been corrected by issuing the notification under Section 10 of the 1948 Act.
The appellant contended that and argued that since the earlier notification was issued after following the due procedure as required under the 1948 Act, no defence of clerical error can be taken by the State. It was submitted that once a conscious decision was taken by the State, it cannot be said that there was any clerical mistake that could have been corrected in exercise of the powers under Section 10 of the 1948 Act.
The Supreme Court observed that the earlier notification specifically stated that it has been issued in exercise of powers conferred by the 1948 Act. Moreover, it was also observed that this notification was issued in consultation with the Minimum Wage Advisory Board and thereafter, only the minimum wages were revised under Section 4 after following the due procedure under Section 5 of the 1948 Act.
At the outset, the Bench observed that:
“Once the minimum wages were revised and determined, which included the basic rates of wages and the special allowance as per Section 4(1)(i) of the Act, 1948, thereafter it cannot be said that there was any clerical and/or arithmetical mistake in mentioning clause (i). The minimum wages were revised and determined even after consultation with the Minimum Wage Advisory Board as required under Section 5 of the Act 1948. Therefore, once there was no mistake, the same could not have been corrected in exercise of powers under Section 10 of the Act 1948.”
Further, The Court was of the view that in the instant petition that a conscious decision was taken by the State Government after consultation with the Minimum Wage Advisory Board to issue the earlier notification and therefore, it cannot be said that there was any arithmetical and/or clerical mistake, which could have been corrected in exercise of powers under Section 10 of the 1948 Act.
Accordingly, the Court was of the view that the notification was wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the relevant provisions of the 1948 Act.
As a Result, the appeal was allowed and the earlier notification was restored simissing lowe court order.
Read Judgment
