EAR TO THE Last week, NAC gave a wake-up call to the government on the need to pay minimum wages
under NREGA
GROUND
NREGA vs Minimum
Wages Act
SREELATHA MENON
an the government break
C its own laws? That seems
to be the case when it
comes to minimum wages in
the National Rural Employment
Guarantee Scheme (NREGS),
which makes the government
the employer of the world’s
largest workforce of close to 35
million job-card holders.
In 19 states, the workers are
getting less than the minimum
wages in their areas, with the
rural development ministry and
the labour ministry looking the
other way.
The National Advisory
Council, headed by Sonia
Gandhi, the president of the rul-
ing party, last week recom-
mended that minimum wages
be paid to NREGS workers.
This brings the government in
direct conflict with NAC.
The rural development min-
istry froze the minimum wage
for NREGS at `100 two years
ago and has not bothered to re-
vise it annually by indexing
it to the consumer price index
for agricultural workers (CPI-
AL), as prescribed by its own
committee on wages, headed
by Jean Dreze.
Will NAC recommendation
wake up the government to the
violation it has overlooked
so far?
The employment guaran-
tee Act is in conflict with the
Minimum Wages Act as
NREGS wages are fixed by the
Centre and minimum wages in
most states are much higher
than that. As the Centre has
fixed `100 as the NREGS wage,
the states, with the exception
of Goa, are not feeling obliged
to pay more.
The implementation of
NAC’s recommendation could
mean that either the states’ laws
apply or the Centre revises the
minimum NREGS wage.
At present, there is no par-
ity between the two rates. If the
NREGS wage is `100 in Ra-
jasthan, the minimum wage in
the state is `135. In Kerala, the
minimum wage is `175, while
NREGS pays `120.
According to Additional So-
licitor General Indira Jaisingh,
any payment below the mini-
mum wage is forced labour. So,
the government is violating its
own law for its largest em-
ployment-generation scheme.
The rural development min-
istry now has the option of is-
suing a notification saying the
states can enforce their mini-
mum wages for NREGS or de-
freeze the `100 wage it had pre-
scribed and link it to CPI-AL.
The ministry had asked a
committee headed by Pronab
Sen under the Ministry of Sta-
tistics and Programme Im-
plementation to fix a NREGS
minimum wage indexed to CPI-
AL. Five months have passed
and the panel is yet to give a
report.
The Dreze committee on
wages had sought an amend-
ment to the employment guar-
antee Act as there was a pos-
sibility of it clashing with the
Minimum Wages Act.
Section 6 (1) of the National
Rural Employment Guarantee
Act says the Centre can spec-
ify wage rates for this Act. The
states can make variations but
not go below the minimum rate
specified by the Centre. This
could mean violation of the
Minimum Wages Act in many
states, as is happening now.
However, Section 6 (2) says
agricultural wages should be
paid till a separate rate is fixed.
As long as state wages are paid,
there is no conflict. But after
the Centre fixed the rate, first
at `80 and then at `100, the gap
with minimum wages has been
growing in the states.
NAC, as in the matter of food
security, stops with a broad rec-
ommendation and does not sug-
gest the ways it can be put in-
to practice. While recommend-
ing food subsidies, it does not
say how leakages can be plugged
and food production can be
increased. So with NREGS.
It does not say if the em-
ployment guarantee Act should
be amended to ensure that min-
imum wages are paid or whether
the Centre should defreeze its
wage and index it to CPI-AL
or just let the Centre mandate
whatever the state rates are.
Anyway, the more impor-
tant question is whether the
government of India wants
to follow its own laws.