LABOUR LAW PROJECT

TOPIC – MINIMUM WAGES ACT- CONSTITUTIONAL

VALIDITY AND NEW ASPECT

1.) The minimum wages act up hails the ARTICLE 43 of the indian constitution, which

states that,

‘Living wage, etc, for workers The State shall endeavor to secure, by suitable legislation or

economic organisation or in any other way, to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise,

work, a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of

leisure and social and cultural opportunities and, in particular, the State shall endeavor to

promote cottage industries on an individual or cooperative basis in rural areas’

The spirit of the minimum wages act of India is relied in the soul on of the article 43 of

Indian constitution, which SADLY is enshrined in part IV of the constitution and hence is

non-enforceable by law.

2.) Another constitutional provision that the minimum wages act is said to defy is the

ARTICLE 19(1g) which says that

‘to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business’

It is questioned by certain jurists that the provisions of the minimum wages act that ask

for providing a fixed minimum wage by the employers to the labours is a ‘BAR’ to their

fundamental right guaranteed under 19(1g).

But this question has been raised again and again in the honorable courts which have

dissented from this opinion and upheld the validity of minimum wages act.

In GUL MUHAMMAD TARA SAHEB VS STATE OF BOMBAY 1962,

Where the honorable court pointed out that the provision of 19(1g) is subject to

restriction enshrined in 19(6) of the Indian constitution.

Article 19(6) states that,

‘Nothing in sub clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law

in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the

interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right

conferred by the said sub clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub clause shall

affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from

making any law relating to,

(i) ……

(ii) ……’
Here in 19(6) the words, ‘the interest of general public’ creates a restriction on the

exercise of this right with respect to public order i.e to preserve public order, the right

can be curtailed.

The same question was raised in V.UNICHOV VS STATE OF KERALA 1962,

And the court upheld the view of GUL MOHAMMAD case.

It was held in this case that the fixation of minimum wages is for the preservation

of public order. As if no minimum wage is fixed, it shall lead to arbitrariness by the

employer and lead TO CLASHES OF INTEREST BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND

LABOUR, which shall cause FRICTION IN SOCIETY.

3.) The ARTICLE 14 of the indian constitution, which relates to equality. Now , it must

be noted that minimum wages are not fixed in the nation. They vary from places

to places and region to region. This provision of the minimum wages act is

condemned by certain jurist as to said to violates RIGHT TO EQUALITY.

But this view is also put down by the courts throughout the nation .

In BHIKUSHA vs SANGAMARA 1963

It was held by the court that person would be liable to different minimum wages if

they are working in different locality.

In C B BOARDING AND LODGING vs STATE 1970,

It was held that persons working in different industry, even though they work in the same

locality would be granted different wages.

Hence the question of the difference of wages throughout nation is totally disregarded

by the courts.

In N.M.WADIA CHARITABLE HOSPITAL vs STATE OF MAHARASTRA 1993,

It was held by the court that fixing different minimum wages for different locality is

permitted under the constitution and under labour laws.

Hence the question that any provision of the minimum wages act is in any way against

the provisions of constitution is wrong.

The minimum wages act is valid in all sense and completely.

As pointed out by the UNION LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT MINISTER SHRI

MALLIKARIUN KHARGE,

The variation of minimum wages between the States is due to differences in socio-

economic and agro-climatic conditions, prices of essential commodities, paying capacity,

productivity and local conditions influencing the wage rate. The regional disparity in

minimum wages is also attributed to the fact that both the Central and State

Governments are the appropriate Government to fix, revise and enforce minimum wages

in scheduled employments in their respective jurisdictions under the Act.

NEW ASPECTS IN MINIMUM WAGES ACT

For the new aspects in the minimum wages act, we need to regard the

discussion in the present session of the parliament and the views forwarded

by the Union Labour & Employment Minister Shri Mallikarjun Kharge

The Union Labour & Employment Minister Shri Mallikarjun Kharge has informed the

Rajya Sabha that the norms recommended by the Indian Labour Conference (ILC), held

in 1957 are taken into account while fixing the minimum wages. These are as follows: -

a) 3 consumption units for one earner.

b) Minimum food requirements of 2700 calories per average Indian adult.

c) Clothing requirements of 72 yards per annum per family.

d) Rent corresponding to the minimum area provided for under Government’s

Industrial Housing Scheme.

e) Fuel, Lighting and other miscellaneous items of expe nditure to constitute 20% of

the total minimum wage.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered a judgement in the case of

REPTAKOS & CO. VS. ITS WORKERS

‘that the children’s education, medical requirement, minimum recreation including

festivals/ceremonies, provision for old age, marriage etc. should constitute 25% of the

minimum wage and used as a guide in fixation of minimum wages. The State

Governments have been requested from time to time to keep the above norms and

judicial pronouncement in view while fixing/revising the minimum wages.’

The recently held 44th Indian Labour Conference, inter alia, discussed the issue of

amendment of the Minimum Wages Act and made certain recommendations for

incorporation in the amendment proposals. The recommendations were mainly on

national minimum wage, enhancement of penal provisions, adoption of VDA in all

States/UTs, etc.

A Conference Committee of the 44th session of ILC was constituted to discuss Agenda

Item No.(i) concerning Minimum Wages and related issues. These issues, inter alia,

include norms for fixation/revision of minimum rates of wages, Variable Dearness

Allowance(VDA), National Floor Level Minimum Wages etc. On the basis of detailed

discussion, the following points emerged.

1. There was broad consensus that the Government may fix minimum wages as per

the norms/ criteria recommended by the 15th ILC (1957) and the directions of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court (Reptakos& Co. Vs. its workers Union) 1992. The Government

may take necessary steps accordingly.

2. It was suggested that the Minimum Wages Act should cover all employments and

the existing restriction for its applicability on the scheduled employments only should be

deleted. This will also help India ratify ILO Convention No.131.

3. It was broadly agreed that there should be national minimum wages applicable

to all employments throughout the country.

4. It was pointed out that the payment to the apprentices should be treated

differently from the other categories.

5. The Committee noted that at present there are 12 States/UTs who have not

adopted VDA. There was consensus that all States/UTs should adopt VDA.
6. It was also recommended that the payment of minimum wages should be done

through Banks/Post Offices etc.

7. It was felt that the enforcing agencies should not be given the power of

adjudication and, therefore, this proposal should be re-examined.

8. Regarding penal provision for violation of the Act, it was felt that imprisonment

clause under Section 22 and 22A is harsh to the employer and may be re-examined.

Further, it was felt that non-maintenance of registers should not attract imprisonment.

9. The proposal of paying different minimum wages in respect of same employment

either in the Centre or in the States should be done away with.