Question

In the following question, a Statement is followed by two Conclusions, I and II. Statement: Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 gives a detailed procedure for fixing or revising minimum wages in respect of any scheduled employment. After considering the advice of the committees appointed, and all representations received by it before the date notified in the Gazette notification, the appropriate Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, fix or revise the minimum rates of wages.
Conclusion I: If a date is specified in the notification, the minimum rates shall come into force from such date.
Conclusion II: If no date is specified, then they shall come into force from the expiry of three months from the date of issue of the notification.
In the context of the above Statement and Conclusions, which one of the following is correct?

• A. Both Conclusions I and II follow
• B. Only Conclusion I follows
• C. Only Conclusion II follows
• D. Neither Conclusion I nor II follows

Hint:

For labour law questions, remember that Gazette Notifications are the official legal mechanism through which wage revisions become enforceable. If a commencement date is not specified, the Act itself generally provides a default effective date.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Concept: The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was enacted to protect workers from exploitation and ensure that employees engaged in scheduled employments receive a minimum wage fixed by law. Section 5 of the Act lays down the procedure for fixing and revising minimum wages.

Step 1: Understanding the role of Section 5 of the Act.
Section 5 authorizes the appropriate Government to fix or revise minimum wages after following a prescribed procedure. This procedure includes:

• Appointment of committees or sub-committees.

• Seeking suggestions and objections from stakeholders.

• Considering representations received.

• Publishing the final notification in the Official Gazette.
Only after these steps are completed can revised wages be legally enforced.

Step 2: Examining Conclusion I.
The Act specifically provides that when a notification mentions a particular date from which revised wages are to become effective, that date becomes legally binding. Therefore, if the notification specifies a commencement date, the revised minimum wages become operative from that date itself. Hence, [ Conclusion I is correct. ]

Step 3: Examining Conclusion II.
The Act also provides a default rule for situations where the notification does not mention any effective date. In such circumstances, the revised minimum wages come into force on the expiry of three months from the date of publication of the notification. This provision ensures that employers and employees receive adequate notice before implementation. Hence, [ Conclusion II is also correct. ]

Step 4: Drawing the final conclusion.
Both conclusions are directly supported by the statutory provisions governing the implementation of revised minimum wages. Therefore, Both Conclusions I and II follow Hence, the correct answer is (A)

Answer 2

Statement-and-conclusion questions test whether each conclusion is a direct logical consequence of the passage, not whether it sounds plausible on its own. Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 can be reduced to two branches: a notification either names a commencement date or it does not, and each branch has its own consequence.

1. Both Conclusions I and II follow: Conclusion I mirrors the first branch, where a named date governs commencement, and Conclusion II mirrors the second branch, where silence on date means a three month gap from issue. Since the statement itself sets out exactly these two branches, both conclusions restate the law rather than add anything to it, so both follow.
2. Only Conclusion I follows: This would require Conclusion II to be unsupported or contradicted by the passage, but the passage does not say anything that conflicts with the three month default rule, so there is no basis to drop Conclusion II while keeping Conclusion I.
3. Only Conclusion II follows: This would require Conclusion I to fail, but naming a date and having that date govern commencement is exactly what the statement supports, so Conclusion I cannot be excluded either.
4. Neither Conclusion I nor II follows: This is only correct if both conclusions add something the passage does not say. Since both conclusions are just the two halves of the same rule stated in Section 5, this option understates what the passage supports.

Because Section 5 explicitly builds in both the "date specified" and "no date specified" scenarios, and the two conclusions map onto these scenarios without adding anything extra, both conclusions are logically supported.

Hence, the correct answer is Both Conclusions I and II follow.