Interpretation of "shall" in the recent KHC decision on minimum wages

In a recent decision, the Karnataka High Court upheld the validity of the notifications enhancing the minimum wages.

One interesting aspect I would like to discuss here is an interesting observation the judge mentioned in passing regarding the interpretation of the word “shall”. The judge seems to suggest that even where the statute refers the word “shall”, the same cannot be construed as mandatory if there is no provision which mentions the consequence of violation of the provision which contains the word “shall”. Makes me wonder if this is an accepted position.

I don’t entirely agree with this interpretation. The use of the word “shall” in itself suggests that the provision is intended to be mandatory. Has a similar view been taken in any of the other judgements?