Article on "CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948" by Sonakshi Singla

 

NAME- SONAKSHI SINGLA

 COURSE – B.A.LL.B. (2^nd Year)

COLLEGE- ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, MOHALI.

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948

We live in a country where the population of economically weaker sections are considerably high. If we think about 70 years from now, they amount to approximately 70% of the population. At that time the employees who used to work in Industrial Sector often came across Economic Exploitation by the Employers. Economic Exploitation broadly refers to, one agent taking unfair advantage of another agent[1]maybe for example by paying him less than what he deserved. So the government decided to bring in a law which could make sure that the employees receive atleast a minimum wage for his work and the employers can not pay him below that. The Employer cannot take the excuse that he is not in the financial position to pay it.  Henceforth , The Minimum Wages Act was passed in 1948 and it came into force on 15th March 1948. The National Commission on Labour has described the passing of the Act as a landmark in the history of labour legislation in the country.

The question arises is this law justified ? yes it is justified , we live in a country which follows the socialistic pattern and we believe in welfare of all sections of society. If we keep this in the hands of the employer to give the wages he would not choose to give wages most of the time or  even if he gives it he would make sure it is very low! This would lead to rich becoming richer and poor poorer.

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY

The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is completely constitutionally valid. This can be proven with the help of various constitutional provisions. Article 43 of the constitution states that, “The State shall endeavour to secure, by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way, to all workers, 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.” Individual employers might find it difficult to carry on the business on the basis of minimum wages fixed under the Act but this must not be the entire premise and reason to strike down the law itself as unreasonable. The employers who do not want to implement the Minimum Wages states that Article 19(1)(g) states , “ All citizens have the right to  practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business”. According to them Minimum Wages will interfere in their freedom. This is completely invalid we can agree that they have the freedom but this doe not mean that the poor labourers have no constitutional right , even they enjoy the rights and we need to always maintain that balance of interest otherwise inequality will rise.

The next thing which comes to our mind is whether Minimum Wages Act , 1948 enables to set a uniform amount of wage throughout the entire India? No, it doesn’t allows that although the act is applicable to the entire country however there is a  difference in costs of living, regional industries’ capacity to pay, consumption patterns, etc.  This is the reason that the State Government are given the prerogative to fix the wage rate according to them.

MINIMUM WAGE EXPLAINED

In the case of   Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. v. Union of India[2],the Court has held that , “A minimum wage is one which is enough to help one meet his bare physical needs as well as his family irrespective of the fact what is the paying capacity of the factory he is working in and it should be more than the subsistence wage rate which can fulfil his needs as well as his family needs like education, medical needs, amenities which are required to maintain his efficiency.”

ACT IS NOT REASONABLE

In the case of Unichoyi v. State of Kerala[3] a distinction was drawn between a bare subsistence or minimum wage and a statutory minimum wage, it was observed that when a statute describes a minimum wage then it is called the statutory minimum wage and it may be higher than the minimum wage which could help one avail facilities like education, medical requirements and other basic amenities.  Fair wage was indented to fixing a minimum rate of wages as mentioned in Section 3(3). They even mentioned that a bare minimum or subsistence wage should be fixed irrespective of the fact that what is the paying capacity of the industry.

In Chandra Bhavan Boarding & Lodging, Bangalore v. State of Mysore and Another [4] it was held that it is completely impossible on the part of legislature to fix the minimum wage rate for any industry which is less in respect of any kind of employment. This task should be kept solely in the hands of the government. To fix a minimum wage it is necessary to collect some data which legislature cannot perform and can be very well done by the government. The legislature did determined a legislative policy which has a binding rule of conduct. The government plays the role in implementing that policy. “There is no basis for saying that the legislature had abdicated any of its legislative functions. The legislature has prescribed two different procedures for collecting the necessary data, one contained in Section 5(1)(a) and the other in Section 5(1)(b)”.

Sanctity of The Minimum Wage Act

In Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan[5], the court held that , “When a person provides service or any kind of labour to another and the remuneration for which is less than the minimum wage then the labourer service provided by him clearly falls under the meaning of the word  “forced labour”. It attracts the violation of article 23. Every person who provides labour or any kind of service to another is entitled to at least minimum wage and if anything less than the minimum wage is paid to him he can complain for violation of his fundamental right under 23 . He may ask the court to direct payment of the minimum wage to him so that the breach of article 23 is compensated.

In the case of Grand Kakatiya Sheraton Hotel & Towers Employees & Workers Union v. Srinivasa Resorts Ltd [6] , the court held that , “The proviso of sub-section 3 provides that if there is a termination of an employment of a worker due to that or disablement .Then the said one year of service will also be not considered as necessary. The court said that even though there is a presumption of constitutionality of provision they do not think that such a provision can be held to be reasonable. This is undoubtedly an unreasonable inroad on the fundamental right of a person under article19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India”.

In the case of Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees' Assn. v. State of Karnataka[7], the court mentioned that , “The the court has referred to various precedents which were all rendered within the current decade . which tries to emphasise upon the fact that equal pay for equal work and providing security for services by the way of  regularising casual employment within a reasonable period of time have been unanimously accepted by the court as a consistent goal of a socialistic society. “Article 141 of the constitution provides that the decision of the court are to be treated and they do not think there is any need to remind the instrumentality of the state be it a centre government or a state government or a public sector that the constitutional makers wanted them to be bound by what the court said by the way of interpreting the law”.

CONCLUSION

The Minimum Wage Act, 1948 came in to order protect the basic human rights all the workers who belong to the scheduled category specified in this Act .This act basically tries to provide the workers doing a certain employment minimum remuneration for the work so that they could get what is just as well as which will help in safeguarding them from any kind of uncertainties. This act ties in reducing the exploitation of the workers however, the act was challenged over its constitutionality by the employers over the country on the contention that the Act violates the Article 14 and Article 19(1) (g) of the constitution of India . The Supreme Court in its landmark judgement held at non-payment of a minimum wages lead to forced labour which is prohibited under Article 23 of the constitution . The court even held other restrictions that are imposed on the freedom of contract by fixation of wages are reasonable and permissible under article 19 (1) (g) of the constitution in the case of Bijay . This was imposed in the interest of the general public with the view of promoting Directive Principles of State Policy as envisaged in the Article 43 of the constitution the court will held in regard of Article 14 of the constitution . The act reasonably classifies the workers on the basis of their intelligible differential and hence provided to only the scheduled workers which are listed in the art hence they are the act is not violate if has Article 14 of the Constitution.

       

MY POINT OF VIEW-

India consists of 501 million workers, which is the second largest after China. India does has various labour laws which tries to prohibit discrimination as well as exploitation of workers. These acts often tries to guarantee fair and human condition of work minimum wages to the workers as well as right to organise form any kind of trade union as well as provide them security. It helps in safeguarding the employees from the exploitation of those who are in majority or who are living in a socially and economically disadvantaged life. Therefore it seems to be necessary for such a law to appear just not on the paper but also in a practical manner and serve assurance to the workers from any kind of exploitation. The government of a country is bound to comply with this social economic laws and failure to which will be considered as a violation of article 21 of the constitution. India is considered to be highly regulated and a country with the most rigid labour laws they need to be a little flexible for the proper implementation and should be reviewed from time to time has that economy as well as the labour market is dynamic.

 

 

---

[1] Exlpoitation of Labour , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_of_labour#cite_note-:0-1, (Last Visited On Aug 12, 2021).

[2]  AIR 1958 SC 578.

[3] (1962) 1 SCR 946.

[4] (1969) 3 SCC 84.

[5] (1983) 1 SCC 525.

[6] (2009) 5 SCC 342.

[7] (1990) 2 SCC 396.