JEMTEC SCHOOL OF LAW, GREATER NOIDA

( (Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Dwarka 16C, Delhi)

LABOUR LAW-II

ASSIGNMENT-I

TOPIC: CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF MINIMUM WAGES ACT,

1948

SUBMITTED TO:

DR. A.K. TYAGI

SUBMITTED BY:

RADHIKA MITTAL

BA LLB 8 ‘A’

03425503818
 CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948

INTRODUCTION
India introduced the Minimum Wages Act in 1948, giving both the Central government and
State government jurisdiction in fixing wages. The act is legally non-binding, but statutory.
Payment of wages below the minimum wage rate amounts to forced labour. Wage Boards are
set up to review the industry’s capacity to pay and fix minimum wages such that they at least
cover a family of four’s requirements of calories, shelter, clothing, education, medical
assistance, and entertainment. Under the law, wage rates in scheduled employments differ
across states, sectors, skills, regions and occupations owing to difference in costs of living,
regional industries' capacity to pay, consumption patterns, etc. Hence, there is no single
uniform minimum wage rate across the country and the structure has become overly complex.

SALIENT FEATURES OF MINIMUM WAGES ACT

 The act requires appropriate government to fix minimum wages for specified
employments.
 The wages shall be paid in cash.
 The act provides that the cost of living allowance and cash value of the
concessions in respect of supplies of essential commodities at concessional
rates shall be computed by component authority at certain interval.
 The number of work hours per day and shall be fixed by the appropriate
government. Also to provide weekly holiday and the payment of overtime
wages to be fixed
 Appointment of Inspectors and authorities to hear and decide dispute
regarding payment of wages less than minimum rate of wages.
 The Act considers the non-payment of minimum wages as an punishable
offence which may attract up to 6 months of imprisonment or fine up to
Rs.500.
 Claim under section 20 to be filed before labour authority where an employer
fails to pay minimum wages to a worker. The authority can direct the
employers to pay 10 times of difference amount.
 
GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGE
 1. It was challenged that the Minimum Wages Act was derogatory to Article 14
of the Constitution which establishes equality among the citizens of India.
2. The act somewhere interfered with Article 19(1)(g) of the constitution where it
provided that every citizen of India has right carry out any business or trade.
3. “Where the fixation of rates of wages and their revision were manifestly
preceded by a detailed survey and enquiry and the rates were brought into
force after a full consideration of the representations which were made by a
section of the employers concerned, it would be difficult in the circumstances
to hold that notification which fixed different rates of minimum wages for
different localities was not based on intelligent differentia having a rational
nexus with the object of the Act, and thereby violated article 14.

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS

Provisions of Minimum Wages Act 1948 are not derogatory to Article 14 and Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution
In the case of Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. v. State of Ajmer1, the Supreme Court of India said:
It can scarcely be disputed that securing of living wages to labourers which ensures not only
bare physical subsistence but also the maintenance of health and decency; it is conductive to
the general interest of the public. This is one of the Directive Principles of State Policy
embodied in Article 43 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court held that the notification and substantial provisions of the Minimum
Wages Act or not violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. as fundamental
rights are not absolute in nature and there are certain reasonable restrictions and minimum
wages were fixed by the government in public interest while fulfilling one of the Directive
Principle of State Policy enumerated under Article 43”.
In the case of “ Bhikusa Yamasa Kshatriya v. Sangamner Akola Bidi Kamgar 2Union the
Supreme Court of India observed that the . Article 14 of the Constitution forbids class
legislation but does not prohibit reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. If the
basis of classification is indicated expressly or by implication, by delegating the function of
working out the details of a scheme, according to the objects of the statute and principles

1
AIR 1955 SC 33
2
AIR 1963 SC306
inherent therein, to a body which has the means to do so at its command, the legislation will
not the exposed to the attack of unconstitutionality.
In other words, even if the statute itself does not make a classification for the purpose of
applying its provisions, and leaves it to a responsible body to select and classify persons,
objects, transactions, localities or things for special treatment, and sets out the policy or
principles for its guidance in the exercise of its ,authority in the matter of selection, the statute
will not be struck down as infringing Article 14 of the Constitution”.
Further in the case of “Chandra Bhavan Boarding and Lodging, Bangalore and others v.
State of Mysore and others 3the Supreme Court of India observed that the government can
fix different minimum wage depending upon the economical conditions, cost of living, nature
of work, category of employment, etc. and held that the provisions of the Minimum Wages
Act 1948 and notification of government does not violate article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution”.

Fixation of different wage rates for different localities is not discriminatory.

In the case of “Unichoyi vs. State of Kerala 4the explained that the Minimum wages Act
purports to prevent exploitation of labour and for that purpose empowers the appropriate
government to take steps to prescribe minimum rates of wages in the scheduled industries. In
an underdeveloped country which faces the problem of unemployment on very large scale, it
is not unlikely that labour may offer to work even on starvation wages.
The policy of the Act is to prevent the employment of such sweated minimum rates, the
capacity of the employer need not to be considered. What is being prescribed is minimum
wages rates which a welfare state assumes every employer must pay before the employs
labour”
In the case of  “ N.M. Wadia Charitable Hospital vs. State of Maharashtra5 it was held
that fixing of Different minimum wages are allowed for different localities under the
Constitution and Indian labour laws, hence the question whether any provision of the
Minimum Wages Act is wrong against the provision of the Constitution.”
Futher, India’s Union Labour and Employment Minister Shri Mallikarjuna Kharage pointed
out that  “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,

3
AIR 1970 SC 2042
4
AIR 1962 SC 12
5
1993 IIILLJ 536 Good
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 the State Governments
are the appropriate Governments to fix, revise and enforce minimum wages in Scheduled
employments in their respective jurisdictions under the Act”.

CONCLUSION
The major objective of the minimum wages act is to protect the workers or labourers from
being exploited by the employers who intends extract fruit out of the sweat of workers and
pay them very less. The workers or labourers are considered as the human resources of an
economy, thus their interest needs to be protected to enhance their efficiency. In this study we
can observe that the provisions of this Act are somewhere violative of Fundamental Rights
enshrined under the Constitution of India.

However we should not forget that these rights are not absolute and also subject to certain
reasonable restrictions. Further the Directive Principles of State Polices given under
Constitution advices the states to make provision to enhance and protect interest of the
labourers. Thus, The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is constitutionally validity.