Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Minimum Wages Act Pag 184-212

    Uploaded by

    sunitha
    11 views30 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    11 views30 pages

    Minimum Wages Act Pag 184-212

    Uploaded by

    sunitha

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 30
    iM WAGES ACT, 1948 sriate Government to fix and revise Introduction. —This Act empowers a gaged in scheduled employments for work itv rates of WAR toemployer expresso implied: ‘one in accordance with the contract of “ . Wages Act and history thervof, fore going into detailed provisions e EE vation Blisagés chine into being, would be quite appropriate to discuss ct Principles, doctrines and theories Sr Yarious economists have attempted 0 Ino Leconomists, at the time of Industrial wages. It was not until the classical political roperly be called a theory eer cisss i rguonal nl MOSAICS MSDN SF csccussion avons Th the course of 18th century there had been a good deal of discussion among English B ic Pamphieteers as to effect of high or low wages upon the industry of ers Hitherto it had been generally assumed that any rise of wages above the level of subsistence would encourage idleness. But in the middle of the 18th century the opinion came into existence that the productivity of the workers, tended to be higher when they ‘were well paid than when they are ill-paid. Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations published in 1776 observed that the liberal reward of labour, as it encourages the propagation, soit increases the industry of the common people. Where the wages are high, Accordingly, we shall always find the workmen more active, diligent, and expeditious thon when they are low. In the course of time different theories of wages sprang up." ‘As regards factors influencing the allocation of share of wages in the national product, in the long run, the general level of wages in the industry and the country is, of ages lustry course, the primary factor, the very foundation? Other factors, besides this, are— (1) Total number of workers employed in relation to employers, working proprietors or small entrepreneurs; (2) Proportion of capital to labour ; (3) Technical and marginal efficiency ; @ ee of raw materials and other mining and agricultural produce in relation to (6) Proportion of skilled to unskilled labour ; o eS ee ee Seem itoct market; tive bargaining strength of employers, and workers ; and (8) The policy of State? : Keeping in view the theories of wé labour out of the total production Hapaene nena out that wages are share of See ee eee of contribution of labour ta the process of MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948 185 production. All the theories 1 determined after various consi technological knowledge, fepresent half truth. As a matter of fact, the wages are cere) vie., efficiency of labour, qualifications, training, availability of labour in the market, competition among the sear pa pecan) Eee bargaining and the policy of State, price level of necessaries, etc, Present day times with the ial we ela fees ten y advent of social welfare State, the last So far as the minimum wages are concerned. The capitalists are in a better position than the workers. If capitalists are organi exploit eee pitalists are organised they are exploiting the by lowering down the wage level. In such circumstances, the a Berens is always needed in order to provide social security to the bread inners who are in worst possible conditions in under-developed countries. It may not be ut of place to say that Minimum Wages Act was passed for the improvement of the ‘economic conditions of the working people in industries in our country. 2 Aims and Objects of Minimum Wages Act.—The Act provides for fixing ‘minimum rates of wages in certain employments to which provisions of this Act apply. The justification for statutory fixation of minimum wages is obvious. Such provisions which exist in more advanced countries are even more necessary in India where workers’ Organisations are yet poorly developed and the workers’ bargaining power is consequently poor. The Act provides for fixation by the State Government of minimum ‘wages for employments covered by the Schedule to the Act. The items in the Schedule are those where ‘sweated labour’ is most prevalent or where there is a big chance of exploitation of labour. After a time, when some experience is gained, more categories of employments can be added and the Act provides for additions to the Schedule. A higher period is allowed for fixation of minimum wages for agricultural labour as administrative difficulties in this case will be more than in other employments covered by the Schedule. ‘The Act also provides for periodical revision of wages fixed. Provision has been made for appointment of Advisory Committees and Advisory Boards, the latter for co-ordination of the work of the Advisory Committees. The ‘Committees and the Boards will have equal representation of employers and workmen. Except on initial fixation of minimum wages, consultation with the Advisory Committee will be obligatory on all occasions of revision. In cases where an employer pays less than the minimum wages fixed by the State Government, a summary procedure has been provided for recovery of the balance with ‘penalty and for subsequent prosecution ofthe offending parties, It is not ordinarily proposed to make any exemption in regard to employees of undertakings belonging to the Central Government except that difficulties might arise where the sphere of duty of such an employee covers more than one State, and when the rates of minimum wages fixed by the different States may be different. For this purpose, a provision has been included that the minimum wages fixed by the State Government will not apply to the employees in any undertaking owned by the Central Government or ‘employees of a Federal Railway except with the consent of the Central Government. ‘The first step in the direction of fixing minimum wages was taken in April, 1946, when ‘Bill to provide for fixing minimum wages in certain employments wherein sweated labour was most prevalent or where there was a big chance of exploitation of 'abour was introduced in the Central Legislative Assembly. The Bill as finally passed by the Dominion Legislature received the assent of the Governor-General on 15th March, 1948 and it « - nai se coal 3 LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAWS 186 ive effect to ‘came to:be:known as the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It ee ione, a. ae ton passed by the Minimum Wages Fixing Machinery Con 0 A in 1928. The eum Wages in industries in which no arrangements oie = = TeBulation of wages, by collective agreements or otherwise and wages ly low.5 * Historical survey, it may be pointed out thatthe object ofthe Act isto In view of the tha at eee Paget exPlitation ofthe workers, and fer dh Purpose it aims at fixation of minimum i ly the Act Te aewhich the employer must pay-The legislature undoubtedly intended to apply industries or localities i in which the labour was unorganised to achieve the object of doing social justice to workmen employed in the scheduled employments by prescribing ‘minimum rates of wages for them? bsistence of his life bur for the Perea aon ofthe bekerlandl soaks moran rPlenate Of ducation, medicet requirements and amenities." In other words, the Act contemplates that the. tum Wage neets ond Apts The Minimum Wages Ac 154, (0973) p.1, coments onto All Tlie Be eo Union AR1963 5 ae, & MAE. Min adc Ascites a AIR 1960 SC 1066, 8 Panihati Muni. Seay, MnttW. Union, AR 1968 . Authority under Minima AIR fe ean Sona aes 11. Crown Aluminium Works v. Phe EE ee a MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948 7 “states should be fixed in the scheduled industries wi “sustenance and maintenance of the worker and his famil “worker.!? The Schedule to the Act mentions industries eeploitation of labourer.'3 Part I of the Schedule contai ‘Shawl weaving, (2) Rice Mill, Flour Mill or Dal Mill, “Manufactory, (4) Plantation that is to say, a th the dual object of providing ly and preserving his efficiency as.a ‘where there was sweated labour or ins employment (1) Carpet making or (3) Tobacco (including Bidi making) ctory, ny estate which is maintained for the purpose ‘of growing cinchona, rubber, tea or coffee, (5) Oil Mills, (6) Employment under Local ‘Authority, (7) Road Construction and Building Operations, (8) Stone breaking or Stone Crushing, (9) Lac Manufactory, (10) Mica Works, (11) Publie Motor Transport (12) Tanneries and Leather Manufactory, (13) Agriculture, (14) Mines such as Fire clay mines, ‘copper mines, China clay mines, ec. (15) Employment in loading and unloading in Railways Boods sheds, docks, and ports, (16) Employment in Ashprit cleaning on railways. In 1998 ‘some other industries have been added, namely Employment in (i lignite mines (ii) gravel ‘mines (tii) slate mines and (iv) laying of underground cables, electric lines, water supply and sewerage pipe line.!* Part Il of the Schedule contains employment in Agriculture. Ttmay be noted that in respect of the employment in agriculture, instead of fixing the ‘minimum rates of wages for whole of the State, the Appropriate Government has been given the power to fix such rates for a part of the State or for any specified class or classes of such employment in the whole State or part thereof. It may be observed that the list of employments specified in the Schedule is not exhaustive and therefore power is given to the ‘State Government to add to the Schedule more employments. It has been held by the Supreme ‘Court of India that this power given to the State Government is not ultra vires. The Supreme Court has observed : “Conditions of labour vary under different circumstances and from State to State and the expediency of including a particular trade or industry within the Schedule depends upon a variety of facts which are by no means uniform and which can best be ascertained by the person who is placed in charge of the administration of a particular State. Its to carry out effectively the purpose of this enactment that power has been given to the ‘Appropriate Government to decide, with reference to local conditions, whether it is desirable that minimum wages should be fixed in regard to a particular trade or industry which is not already included in the list. We do not think that in enacting Section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act, the Legislature has in no way stripped itself ofits essential powers or assigned to the administrative authority anything but an accessory or subordinate power which was deemed necessary to carry out the purpose and the policy ofthe Act.” ‘Accordingly various employments have been added to the Schedule in different States from time totime. 2, Application. —It extends to the whole of India including States of Manipur, Tripura, Union Territories, Dadra, Nagar Haveli State of Jammu and Kashmir. Provisions of this Act apply to the Scheduled Industries in which the labour is unorganised. The benefits of this Act are available to the employees of industries to which this Act applies. Employee for the purposes of this Act means any person who is employed for hire or TD. Airfreight Lid. v. State of Karn ‘Kerala, AIR 1962 SC 12, 17 relied on. 43, Chandra Bhaoan Boarding and Lodging, Bangolorev. State of Mysore, (1970) ULL] 403 $C. 1d, Added by S.O. 439 (E) dated 205.1998. 15, Edward Mills Co, v. State of Ajmer, ALR. 1955S. 25 and others, 1999 SCC (L&S) 1185; U. Unichoyi v State of INDUSTRIAL LAWS nual or clerical, in a scheduled reward to do any work, sled oF wages have been fe and includes an TRloyment in rnpet of which itu Ser out by another Person to be made ‘outworker to whom any articles or material pane repaired, adapted or otherwise up, cleaned, washed, altered, ‘ornamented, ress ofthat other Person where the processed for sale for the purposes of the trade or| ker or in some other premises re Sunmad ou eiherin the home of HEU NTE eran anda inlices pir peing premises under the coro and management OWS ment; but does not an employee declared to be an employee by the appropri! include any member ofthe Armed Forces ofthe Union: “Thus a exrnpoindr Ste ot pura INE eaueynet seid foe mean a or edule employment. There is nothing in the Act or Schedule to indicate that the employee concerned must be in the matter of either roving ca or plucking or manulacuring it!” Out-workers employed by the Contras o*% Heinstontol nd supervision on the work of Bidi Rolling though Bidis rolled at their Tepeciive houses such workers are employees within the meaning ofthis provision. ° The designation ofa person as Manager is not the ultimate criterion to decide whether he is an employee or not. That can only be decided after looking into his functions and duties. If the ‘major part of the work of a Manager is clerical in nature, he would be an employee, within aS pore oe /Aceatianiag the fact he is designated as Manager. The resumption is that the Government has fixed the rate of minimum w. and the designation given in the Notification revising the rate ee ps employees, namely, Managers, Photographers, Artists, Travelling Aj rin Representatives et. are not decisive ofthe question that th eens Tn ‘matter of fact, they are doing mainly skilled or clerical work ao ‘2 Eaeo ea whether they are employees sey mute ei ‘And ‘appropriate authority constituted un fe t! pera a. a for consideration was whether the teachers ofan edueniogl Carian ee guestion explyee under Secon 2) ee Man Wage ah tn ca beheld to be os to enable the Government to 188, Act added in Part I of the Schedule Item 40 descrit ing “employ classes, schools includi a nd echo enpleyment in private coaching Peesee ols including) ey schools and techn icicle ee iu Exing minimum rate of wages for the employees therein, By Notification dnie Pose 3 tion dated. S 30.4.1983 the add any employment to the Sched the lule under Section 27 vet OF the: i MW. At 1988 Section 2 ot react is wine O“e™MERt to any fetter and 17. Distt. Manager Shonachera Ts Fe Estate 18. 1965 Maharashtra Law Journal, (Newey (oc Kisur 19. 197 LabourlLC. dot Koray NO 1 Purlayestha, ALR Assam 22. 20. 1996 SCC (Les) 923 _ Section A 5 of the Act gives large powers to the a sapere Court considered the objcs and reasons of the Act and provisions of 77 and observed that combined reading of the aforesaid provisions Berea De ofthe legislation as indicated earlier makes it explicitly cen that the ‘Government can add to either part ofthe Schedule any employment where persons are ‘employed for hire or reward to do any work siled or unskilled, manual or clerical If the [Persons employed do not do the work of any skilled or unskilled or of a manual or clerical ‘Rature then it would not be possible for the State Government to include such an ‘employment in the Schedule in exercise of power under Section 27 of the Act. Since the teachers of the educational institutions are not employed to do any skilled of unskilled oF ‘manual or clerical work and therefore could not be held to be an employee under Section 21) of the Ad, itis beyond the competence of the State Government to bring them under the Purview of the Act by adding the employment in educational institutions in the Schedule in ‘exercise of power under Section 27 of the Act. ‘The Supreme Court while examining the question whether teachers employed in a ‘school are workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act had observed in A. Sundarambal v. Govt, of Goa, Daman and Diu; “We are of the view that the teachers employed by ‘educational institutions whether the said institutions are imparting primary, secondary, ‘graduate or post-graduate education cannot be called ‘workmen’ within the meaning, of ‘Section 2(s) of the Act. Imparting of education which isthe main function of teachers cannot ‘be considered as skilled or unskilled manual work or supervisory work or technical work ‘or clerical work. Imparting of education isin the nature of a mission of a noble vocation. A ‘teacher educates children, he moulds their character, builds up their personality and makes them fit to become responsible citizens. Children grow under the care of teachers. The lerical work, if any they may do, is only incidental to their principal work of teaching” ‘Applying the aforesaid dictum to the definition of employee under Section 2()) of the Minimum Wages Act it may be held that a teacher would not come within the said ‘definition. In the aforesaid premises it was held that the teachers of an educational institution cannot be brought within the purview of the Act and State Government in “exercise of power under the Act is not entitled to fix the minimum wage of such teachers. ‘Thus the impugned notifications so far as the teachers of the educational institution ace “concemed were accordingly quashed. In Municipal Council, Hatta v. Bhagat Singh and others? where the respondents were working as moharrirs/peons with the appellant, Municipal Council. Their application ‘under Section 22 of the Minimum Wages Act claiming payment of overtime under Section 14 thereo! for additional hours of work put in by them was allowed by the competent authority. The High Court dismissed the appellant's wnt petition. Allowing the appeal the ‘Supreme Court held that to claim overtime under Section 14, the following conditions must be fulfilled by an employee (i) the minimum rate of wages should be fixed under the ‘Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and (i) such an employee should work on any day in excess of Dh 1988 SOC (LAS) B92. ‘1998 SCC (Ls) 881 ‘MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948, wi (@) Minimum rates of wages for such scheduled em, ave been fix es employment must have been fixed (©) Ifthe committee has been appointed by the government under Section 5 of the Act im respect of such scheduled employment it must consist of persons representing ‘employers and employees in scheduled employment who shall be in equal numbers. @) Employment in an oil mill is a scheduled employment. Vanaspati is essentially an il although certain processes had been carried on. Thus the provisions of the Act are applicable to it. In Patel Ishwarbhai Prahladbhai v. Taluka Development Offcer2® where question for ‘decision was whether tube well operators Vijapur Taluka and District Panchayats were ‘entitled to the benefit of Minimum Wages Act. The Supreme Court held that there is no doubt that the tube well operators were in scheduled employment under the Panchayats. The tube well operators even though State Government servants were employed in scheduled employment under the local authorities and were consequently entitled to ‘minimum wages and other benefits under the Act. It as been held by the Gujarat High Court invSomiben Mathurbai Vasava v. M/s. Lalji Hakku Parmar Leather Works Company,” that a bare reading of Section. 17 shows that piece-rated workers are also governed by the provisions of Minimum Wages Act. This section requires the employer to pay piece rated ‘workmen wagesat not less than the minimum time rate. It has been further held that even if the employee relinquishes or reduces his right to minimum rate of wages or any privilege or concession accruing to him under the Act, it shall be null and void in so far as it purports to reduce the minimum rates of wages fixed under the Act. Any agreement reducing the minimum rates of wages is null and void as it violates Section 25 which is a provision of absolute prohibition against contracting out of the benefits and privileges under the Minimum Wages Act People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India? is a very interesting leading case on contract labour. There was a writ petition brought by way of public interest litigation in order to ensure observance of the provisions of various labous laws in relation to workmen employed in the construction work of various projects connected with the Asian Games. The matter was brought to the attention of the court by the petitioner which is an organisation formed for the purpose of protecting democratic rights by means of a letter addressed to one of the Judges (Bhagwati J). The letter was based on a report ‘made by a team of three social scientists who were commissioned by the first petitioner for the purpose of investigating and inquiring into the conditions under which the workmen engaged in the various Asiad projects were working. Since the letter addressed by the first petitioner was based on the report made by the three social scientists after personal investigation and study, it was treated as the writ petition on the judicial side and notice ‘was issued upon it inter ala to the Union of India. Delhi Development Authority and Delhi ‘Administration which were arrayed as respondents to the writ petition. Two preliminary objections were raised on behalf of the respondent against the maintainability of the writ petition. The first objection was that the petitioners had no Tocus standi to maintain the writ petition since, even on the averments made in writ petition, the rights said to have been violated were those of the workers employed in the ‘construction work of the various Asiad projects and not of the petitioners and the 26. (4983) 1 LL} 237 (S.C) 27. (1984) 21) 381 (Guj). 28. (1982) ITLL 454 (S.C). _ —~ = therefore, have any cause of action. The second pr pen eo Rey eatont palinicolli against the reponden the workmen whose rights were sad to have been violated were employee, contracors and not ofthe respondens and the eause of ation of the workmen yn therefore agnnst the contactor and no against the respondents. It was also cnn that as part of this preliminary objection that no writ petition under Article 32 Constitution could lie against the respondents for the alleged violation of the rights.) ‘workmen under the various labour laws, and the remedy, if any, was only under, provisions of those laws. ‘The Court rejected these objections and recorded its reasons. It was observed that i, first preliminary objection raises the question of locus standi of the petitioners to main,» the writ petition. Itis true that the complaint ofthe petitioner in the writ petition regard to the violation of various labour laws designed for the welfare of the workme, and, therefore, from a strictly traditional point of view it would only be the workincy ‘whose legal rights are violated who would be entitled to approach the court for judi. redress. But the traditional rule of standing which confines access to the judicial process ‘only to those to whom legal injury is caused or legal wrong is done has now been jettisoned by this court and the narrow confines within which the rule of standing was imprisoned for long years as the result of inheritance of the Anglo-Saxon system of jurisprudence have ‘been broken and the new dimension has been given to the doctrine of locus standi which has Tevolutionised the whole concept of access to justice in a way not known before the ‘western system of jurisprudence. The court has taken the view that, having regard lo the ‘Peculiar socio-economic conditions prevailing in the country where there is considerabie Poverty, iliteracy and ignorance obstructing and impeding accessibility to the judicial Process, it would result in losing the door of justice to the poor deprived sections of the community ifthe traditional rule of standing evolved by Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence that only a person wronged can sue for judicial redress were to be blindly adhered to and followed, and it is, therefore, necessary to evolve a new strategy by relaxing this traditional rule of standing inorder tha justice may become easily availabe to lowly and the lost. ‘The Court referred its judgment in the Judges Appointment and Transfer Case? where it has been held that where a person or class of persons to whom legal injury is caused or legal wrong is done is by reason of poverty, disability, or socially or economically disadvantaged position not able to approach the court for judicial redress, any member of Public acting bona fide and not out of any extraneous motivation may move the court for judicial redress ofthe legal injury or wrong suffered by such person or class of persons ancl the judicial process may be set in motion by any publi spiited individual or inetitation even by addressing a letter to the court. Where the court is moved for this purpose by » member ofa public by addressing letter drawing attention ofthe cout to such legal injury or legal wrong, court would cast aside all technical rules of procedure and entertain the letter as the writ petition on the judicial side and take action upon it. That is what has happened in the present case. Here the workmen whose rights are said to have been violated and to whom a life of basic human dignity has been denied are poor, ignorant, illiterate human beings who, by reason of their poverty and social and economic disability, are unable to approach the courts for judicial redress and hence the petitioners have, under the liberalised rule of standing (locus standi) to maintain the present writ petition 12 LABOUR ANDINDUSTRIAL LAWS 29. ALR. 19825. 149. MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948 my not acting, mula fide oF out of Fespondents cannot so allege since, the first petitioner is an ‘organisation ae to the protection and enforcement of fundamental rights and making, oo. ‘Of State policy enforceable and justiciable, There can be no doubt th, it is out sense of public service that present litigation has been brought by the ‘petitioners and it is clearly maintainable. ‘cause has been championed by he Union of India, the Delhi which have entrusted the the petitioners are employees of the contractors but tl Administration and the Delhi Development Authori Construction work of Asiad projets to the contractors cannot escape their obligation for Cbservance of various labour laws by the contractors. $9 far as the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 is concerned, itis clear that under Section 20, if any amenity required to be provided under Sections 16, 17, 18 or 19 for the benefit of the ‘workmen employed in any establishment is not provided by the contractor, the obligation fo provide such amenity rests on the principal employer and, therefore, if in the construction work of the Asiad projects the contractors do not carry out the obligations imposed upon them by any of these sections, Union of India, the Delhi Administration, and the Delhi Development Authority as principal employers would be liable and these obligations would be enforceable against them. The same position obtains in regard to the Inter State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, The construction work being hazardous employment within the meaning of Article 24 Of the Constitution, the children below 14 years of the age cannot be employed in the construction work, notwithstanding the absence of construction industry in the ‘Schedule to Employment of Children Act, 1938. Therefore, not only are the contractors ‘under a constitutional mandate not to employ any child below the age of 14 years, but it is also the duty of the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority to ensure that this constitutional obligation is obeyed by the contractors to ‘whom they have entrusted the construction work of the various Asiad projects. So also with regard to the observance of the provisions of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, the above three authorities cannot avoid their obligation to ensure that these provisions are ‘complied with by the contractors Its the principle of equality embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution which finds expression in the provisions of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976. It was held that the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority must also ensure that minimum wage is paid to the workmen as provided under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. This obligation which even otherwise rests on the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority is additionally reinforced by Section 17 of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 in so far as migrant workmen are concerned. It is obvious, therefore, that the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority cannot escape their obligation to the workmen to e sure observance of these labour laws by the contractors and if these labour laws are not complied with by the contractors, the workmen would clearly have a cause of action against the above three authorities. The objection that the writ petition under Article 32 cannot be maintained unless it complains of a breach of some fundamental right was met by the Supreme Court by saying SS. LAWS © 1" LABOUR ANDINDUSTRIAI age of 14 yess violation of fundamental righy. s, 5 Remuneration Act, 1976 is in eifec si pote Yt vA FREE eave Constant India and it breach of equality before the law enshrined in Ber rilticeabjectematier of, can hardly be disputed that such a complaint can lepine & Sc ticle 32. Then non-observance of the provisions of a Contract Troe Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation he Employment and Condition of Service) Act, 1979/is also a a Beating to violation of Article 1. These Acts are clearly intended to ensure basic human dignity to the workmen and ifthe workmen are deprived of any of these rights and benefits ha ‘would clearly bea violation of Article 21. Nor-payment of minimum wages to the workmen ‘under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is also breach of fundamental right enshrined in Article 23 dealing with prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour. The ‘Supreme Court rejecting the objection came to the conclusion that the writ petition was maintainable. Having disposed of the preliminary objections the court considered the question whether there was any violation of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Article 24 of the Constitution, the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and the Inter State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Condition of Service) Act, 1979 by the contractors. The Union of India admitted that there were certain violations but for these violations, the Union of India added that prosecutions were initiated against the errant contractors and no violation of any ofthe labour laws was allowed to go unpunished. The Union of India also concedes! that Re. one per worker per day was deducted by the jamadars from the wage payable to the workers with the result that the workers did not get the minimum wage of Rs. 9.25 per

    You might also like