The Karnataka High Court has directed the inclusion of the Union Government as a respondent in a petition challenging the Karnataka government’s notification that revises minimum wages across various scheduled employments. This petition was filed by the Karnataka Employers’ Association, and the court heard the case [Karnataka Employers Association & Anr Vs State Of Karnataka].
Judicial Direction for Union Involvement
Presiding over the matter, Justice Jyoti Mulimani indicated that the petitioners were invoking provisions of the new Central labor legislation. Hence, she stated that the Union Government’s perspective is crucial before any interim relief can be granted. The Court remarked, “You (petitioner) are taking shelter under the new Act of the Central Government. If that is the case, the Central Government has to come into the picture. Make the Central government a party. Let us see what the Centre says. Let the Centre say whether it has taken responsibility and removed the concept of scheduled employment and fixed floor wages as uniform wages, or whether it is left to the domain of the State government. After hearing both the Centre and the State government, we will pass orders on the interim prayer.”
Arguments Presented
Senior Advocate SS Naganand, representing the petitioners, argued that the revised wages could significantly impact various sectors, questioning the State’s authority to increase minimum wages by such substantial margins, sometimes over 60%. “Sixty per cent wage is increased. Nursing homes and colleges will have to close down. They cannot pay the salary. If you compare with other States, Karnataka is paying the highest salary,” he asserted. Naganand also sought interim relief to prevent the State from enforcing the revised wages, which he argued would impact numerous industries and sectors.
Legal and Practical Concerns
During the hearing, Naganand referenced the statutory framework, comparing Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, with Section 6 of the new Central labor law. He argued that the new law eliminates “scheduled employment” and establishes a concept of a floor wage determined by the Central government. “Can a notification issued under a statute which is repealed be the basis of fixation of wages under a new statute, which is a Central statute?” he questioned.
Opposition and Defense
Senior Advocate Vikram Huilgol, representing the All India Central Council of Trade Unions, defended the wage revision, emphasizing the lack of wage increases since 2017 and citing rising costs due to global economic conditions. “2017 is the last revision of the wages. For nine years minimum wage remained the same. In the meantime, the pandemic came and went. War is going on in other parts of the world. All prices have gone up and we should pay the same wages? That cannot be possible,” he argued.
More Read
State’s Position
Advocate General K Shashikiran Shetty requested a week to file objections on behalf of the Karnataka government. The petitioners highlighted that the wage revision imposed significant financial burdens on employers, with some sectors seeing over 60% increases. They pointed out that 34 out of the 84 scheduled employments had already undergone revisions, which were challenged in the High Court through various writ petitions.
Pending Legal Challenges
The petition detailed that the State had issued a draft notification in April 2025 for revised wages, followed by a corrigendum later that month. Employer associations criticized the uniform wage revision approach, arguing it disregarded industry-specific factors. The employers noted previous High Court interim orders in July 2025 that restrained the implementation of the Advisory Board’s decisions without court permission. Despite these directions, the State issued the final notification in May 2026 without seeking court leave, a point of contention in the plea.
