CHAPTER — IV

THE SUPREME COURT ON

MINIMUM WAGES VIS-A-VIS NEED

RASED MINIMUM WAGE

 132

CHAPTER IV

THE SUPREME COURT ON MINIMUM WAGES VIS-A-VIS THE

NEED-BASED MINIMUM WAGE

4.1. WAGE ADJUDICATION IN INDIA

In India, wage fixation is done under the Minimum Wages Act,

through Adjudication, Arbitration, Wage Boards and Collective

Bargaining.1 There have been various important decisions of the

Supreme Court involving different wage problems where the Court has

laid down certain far-reaching principles. The Supreme Court has come

across the wage related disputes under the Minimum Wages Act,

Collective bargaining process and the appeals from the industrial

tribunals. While deciding these cases, the Court has used in different

context and connotations, the related terms for ‘minimum wage’ such as

bare minimum, basic minimum, minimum wage, industrial minimum

wage, statutory minimum wage, sustenance wage or subsistence plus

level and the need based minimum wage. The reasons for emergence

of these different nomenclature for the term ‘minimum wage’ is that

each case stood before the Supreme Court from its own background.

In this chapter, it is proposed to evaluate all the decisions of the

Supreme Court pertaining to wages especially where the Court touched

 133

the concept of ‘minimum wage’, in order to establish clearly what

exactly the issue before the Court and the ratio laid down therein to

substantiate the claim made in the beginning.

From its very inception the Supreme Court has brought to bear on

the adjudication of industrial disputes, particularly of disputes relating to

wages and allied problems of financial concern to the worker, on ethical

and social outlook, liberally interpreting the progressive spirit of the

Constitution in certain instances. The Supreme Court may, in its

discretion, “grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree,

determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or

made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.”2

The Supreme Court ruled at a very early stage of its existence

that Article 136 was wide enough to give it jurisdiction to entertain

appeals from the decisions of Industrial Tribunals.3 Since then a vast

volume of authoritative case law, binding on all tribunals and sub­

ordinate Courts, has come into existence, thereby imparting to matters

essentially economic, the stamp of judicial authority. The Law

Commission's misgivings that “labour matters are being thrust upon a

Court which has not the means or materials for adequately informing

itself about the different aspects of the questions which arise in these

2 See Article 136 ofti* Indian CoostatHtioc.

1 Bharat Bank Ltd Ddkiv Employees ofthe Bharat BankLtd., Delhi, A.LR. 1950 S.C. 188.
 134

appeals and therefore finds it difficult to do adequate justice”, have not

prevented the Supreme Court from expressing itself decisively and

comprehensively on every subject that enters into labour-management

relations.4

Though the financial position of the employer and the state of

national economy have their say in the matter of wage fixation, “the

requirements of a workman living in a civilized and progressive society

also come to be recognized.”5 Hence, according to the Supreme Court,

social philosophy of the age supplies the background for the decision of

industrial disputes relating to the wage structure.6

Fixation of wage structure has been recognized to be among the

most difficult tasks that industrial adjudication has to tackle.

Adjudication has to steer such a course that while the demands of

social justice are met by securing to workmen a fair share of the income

which they help to produce, the attempt at fair distribution does not tend

to dry up the source of national income itself. Better living conditions

have to be secured for workmen by giving them their fair wages for their

labour, but at the same time the inroads made on the profits should not

be so unreasonable as to drive capital away from fruitful employment or

to affect prejudicially capital formation itself. Thus several complex

4 Subraman»y*KJ^,»'qg«Zn/ndia(N«*DdW:T«taMcGraw-HinPublirtingCto. litl, 1977)M

168.
5 Standard Vaccum Raining Co. ofIndia Ltd. Vlts Workman, 19611 LU( S.Q232.
4 Hindustan Timas Ltd.v Thair Workman, 196311U (S.C.) 108.
 135

factors, some economic and some springing from social philosophy,

give to conflicting considerations, ail of which have to be borne in mind.*7

“While the very concept of capital-labour relations is undergoing an

evolution under the influence of international movements in the cause of

labour, the emergence of an independent democratic State in India has

influenced thoughts on this matter even more profoundly.”78

The Minimum Wages Act was passed in the year 1948 and the

Constitution came into existence in the year 1950. The Supreme Court

was first assigned with the task of determining the constitutional validity

of the Minimum Wages Act in Edward Mills Co. Ltd. V State of Ajmer,8

wherein the validity of Sec. 27 of the Act was challenged on the ground

of excessive delegation. The power of the appropriate Government to

appoint the Committees under Sec. 5 also came before the Court. Sec.

27 provides that the appropriate Government, after giving three months,

notice of its intention to do so, may add to either part of the Schedule of

the Act, any employment in respect of which it is of the opinion that

minimum rates of wages should be fixed under the Act.

It was argued that the Act prescribed no principles and laid down

no standard which could furnish an intelligent guidance to the

administrative authority in taking such a decision and that the matter

7 Sabtamnaya Supra n.4at 168.

7* HimtMtw Timex Supra n.6.

* 1954 nLL.J(S.C.)686.
 136

was left entirely to the discretion of the appropriate Government. Such

delegation virtually amounted to surrender by the legislature of its

essential legislative functions.9 The Court, rejecting the argument, held

that conditions of labour differed under different circumstances and from

State to State and the expediency of including a particular trade or

industry within the schedule depend upon a number of facts which were

not uniform and which could be determined by a person in charge of the

administration of a particular State. Therefore, the legislature could not

be said to have stripped itself of its essential powers or assigned to the

administrative authority any thing except a subordinate power which

was thought necessary to carryout the purpose and policy of the Ad.10

The second issue is that the Government reconstituted the Advisory

Committee after the expiry of its term retrospectively. The Court held

that the nature of the Advisory Committee under Sec. 5(2) is only

recommendatory and the final decision is left in the hands of the

Government and hence it is valid.11

s Id. at 637.

10 Id at 690.

“ Id at 692
 137

In 1955, the validity of the Minimum Wages Act was again

challenged in Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. V State of Ajmier,12 wherein

Sections 3,4 and 5 of the Act were challenged on the ground that the

restrictions imposed by these Sections upon the freedom of contract

and thus violated the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (1)

(g) of the Constitution. There was an industrial dispute between the

appellants company and its workmen regarding enhancement of wages

and the dispute was referred to an Industrial Tribunal. The tribunal held

that The capacity of the mill precludes the award of higher rates of

wages and higher dearness allowance.” The employees appealed to

Appellate Tribunal when this appeal was pending, the Government fixed

the minimum wages at Rs. 56 in the textile industry under the Act. In

the meantime the Appellate Tribunal sent back the case to the industrial

tribunal for further investigation and the latter rejected the basis upon

which the minimum rates of wages of Rs. 56 were fixed by the State,

and fixed the minimum rates of wages including the dearness allowance

at Rs. 35 only.13

The Company in its petition stated that, the minimum wages fixed

by the State is prohibitory and it is not at all possible for the company to

11 19SSILLJ129.SC.

is Id. at 129.
 13S

cany on its business on payment of such wages and accordingly closed

its mills.14 An interesting feature in this case was that, all the workers

working in the mills approached the Company and expressed their

willingness to work at lower rate of wages than the rates prescribed

under the Act. Despite the willingness of the workers the Company is

unable to open the mills by reason of the fact that the Act makes it a

criminal offence for not paying the wages fixed under the Act.15 The

workers also filed the other petition supporting the contentions of the

Company. Mr. Seervai, appearing for both the petitioners invited the

Court to hold that the material provisions of the Ad are illegal and ultra

vires by reason of their conflid with the fundamental rights of the

employer. The Ad puts unreasonable restridions upon the rights of the

employer, and the rights of the employees are also restrided, in as

much as they are disabled, from working in any trade or industry on the

terms agreed to between them and their employers.16

Further it was contended that the provisions relating to the fixation

of minimum wages are unreasonable and arbitrary. The whole thing

14 Id. at 130.

13 Sac. 22 affiic MinimimWigai Act|»oividaittMt«tff employer nko (a) toiiy employee k«

than the mnanuni rates ofwages fixed or less tfam the amount doe to Uni under tilt
provisicKH oftbs Act or (b) cootisvcaec any rale or under mule Acre under, dsril be
ponishabk with imprisonment for m tarn which may extend to six moatin, or wife fine which
may extend to five buncked rupees, or with both.
14 Bgay Cotton Milk Supra n, 12 at 130.
 139

has been left to the unfettered discretion of the 'appropriate

Government’ and even when a Committee is appointed, the report or

advice of such Committee is not binding on the Government. The

restrictions put by the Act are altogether unreasonable and even

oppressive with regard to one class of employers, who for purely

economic reasons are unable to pay the minimum wages but who have

no intention to exploit the labour at all. In such cases the provisions of

the Act have no reasonable relation to the object, which it has in view.17

The Court held that ‘it can scarcely be disputed that securing of

living wages to labourers which ensure not only bare physical

subsistence but also the maintenance of health and decency is

conducive to the general interest of the public. This is one of the

directive principles of State policy embodied in Article 43 of our

Constitution. The employers cannot be heard to complain if they are

compelled to pay the minimum wages to their labourers even though

the labourers, on account of their poverty and helplessness are willing

to work on lesser wages.*18

n Ibid.

Ibid.
 140

Further it was held that If it is in the interest of the general public

that the labourers should be secured adequate living wages,19 the

intentions of the employers whether good or bad are really irrelevant.

Individual employers might find it difficult to cany on the business on the

basis of the minimum wages fixed under the Act but this must be

entirely due to the economic conditions of the particular employers.

That cannot be a reason for striking down the law itself as

unreasonable. As regards the procedure for fixing of minimum wages,

the ‘appropriate Government’ has undoubtedly been given very large

powers. But it has to take into consideration, before fixing wages, the

advice of the committee if the one is appointed or the representations

on its proposals made by persons who are likely to be affected thereby.

Consultation with advisory bodies has been made obligatory on all

occasions of revision of minimum wages and Sec. 8 of the Act provides

for the appointment of the Central Advisory Board for the purposes of

advising the Central as well as the States both in the matter of fixing

and revising the minimum wages. In the committees of advisory bodies,

the employers and employees have an equal number of representation

and there are certain independent members besides who are expected

to take a fair and important view of the matter. These provisions the

19 “living wages" implies Hie wage which meets the sofadKence level and not the torn “living wage’*
aa defined by Committee on Fair Wages.
 141

Court held, in its opinion, constitute an adequate safeguard against any

hasty or capricious decision by the ‘appropriate Government’.20 In

suitable cases the ‘appropriate Government’ has also been given the

power of granting exemptions from the operation of the provisions of

this Ad.21

The Court held that the restrictions, though they interfere to some

extent with the freedom of trade or business guaranteed under Article

19 (1) (g) of the Constitution, are reasonable and being proposed in the

interests of the general public, are protected by the terms of Cl. (6) of

Article 19.22

These cases firmly establish that in fixing the minimum wages

under the Act, the hardship caused to individual employers or their

inability to meet the burden has no relevance. The Court had

specifically laid down that the workmen should at least be given

adequate living wages, which in reality mean minimum wages.

Secondly the Court analyzed the scope of the term ‘minimum rates of

wages’ fixed under the Act, that it should ensure not only bare physical

subsistence but also the maintenance of health and decency and thus

20 Byay Cotton Milk Supra n. 12.

r»f«Im» Mmimiiin W«gw fjnwmmwitin MMlwi mlfc thfpnawrtn

grant ganptioig and cxccptiong from tfac payment ofnu'nununi lita ofwigB payable under
4>e Ad

23 Bngay Cotton Milk Supra n. 12 at 131.

 142

concurred with the definition of ‘minimum wage’ as defined by the

Committee on Fair wages.23 The Court here liberally interpreted the

progressive spirit of the Constitution. Again the employers in different

cases raised the similar contentions without much new impact on the

Supreme Court. It is proposed to examine them at the appropriate

stage.

In the above two cases the Supreme Court was called upon to

decide the validity of the Minimum Wages Law itself as well as on the

question of power vested with the appropriate Government to interfere

with matters of wage fixation which under common law was considered

to be in the realm of contract between parties based upon notions of

freedom of contract. Very rightly the Court had no difficulty to reject the

older jurisprudence as pleaded even by Mr. Seervai and opt for the new

jurisprudence of Industrial Law. The outcome of these two decisions

clearly establish that in fixing the statutory minimum wage the capacity

of the employer to pay is not a relevant factor.

Apart from the above, there are series of judgments through

which it can be traced the evolution of judicial pronouncements on the

question of wages specially pertaining to the principles that ought to be

2)
Id. at 130.
 143

followed under different circumstances and in respect of fixation of

different levels of wages.

In the present state of society the primary requirement is that all

workmen must get at least a minimum wage, which should not only be a

bare minimum but it should also provide them some measure of

education, medical requirements and other amenities. In determining

the minimum wage the financial capacity of the employer or industry is

irrelevant, the case of fair wage stands on a different footing. In

assessing the capacity, the main consideration to be borne in mind is

that “the industry should be able to maintain production with efficiency

and the fixation of the rates of wages should be such that there are no

movements from one industry to another owing to wide disparities.” In a

case where the employer is already paying minimum wage and the

claim is for fair wage, the question of the financial capacity of the

employer is not only relevant but is pertinent, because fixing the limit of

fair wage would depend upon the capacity of the employer to pay.24

4. 2. EARLY TRIBUNALS ON MINIMUM WAGES

In Rajamani Transports V Their Workmen?5 the Labour Appellate

Tribunal has observed that the capacity of a concern or an industry to

24 Express Ntws Popart (P) Ltd. V Union cfIndio. 19611LU 365. SC.

* 1952 HLU 785. (LAT).

 144

pay minimum wages is not relevant for fixing the minimum wages, which

should be paid by the industry. The workmen must get minimum wages

and if the management cannot afford to do so, it has no right to exist.

In Gom Tile Works v Their Workmen,™ an attempt was made by

the management to make out that the factory is in a poor financial

position and has not got sufficient capacity to pay the higher wages and

the capacity to pay is one of the determining factors to decide the

question as to what are the minimum wages that should be paid. The

workers contended that the wages paid to all the workers are

abnormally low and that they should be substantially increased. The

evidence clearly shows that the condition of the factory is by no means

prosperous. If the capacity of a concern to pay wages is a determining

factor in fixing the minimum wages, then the court would have preferred

to hold that the position of the factory does not justify the enhancement

of the very low wages which are now being paid and held that the fact

that the financial position of the factory is unsatisfactory cannot be taken

into consideration in fixing the minimum wages which have to be paid.

In Plywood products and Their Workmen?7 the question arose

whether workmen working in a nascent industry paying wages to

M 19551LLI261. (LAT).

27 19551LU 308. (LAT).

 145

unskilled workmen not lower than the wages prevalent in the locality for

similar occupation and especially when they had income from

agriculture to supplement their living is justified? Was considered by the

Labour Appellate Tribunal. This was an employer’s appeal from the

award given by the State Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad, by which the

minimum wage of the unskilled workmen has been raised. This factory

was situated on the outskirts of Sitapur Municipality. The Management

contended that having regard to its struggling position to the prevailing

rates of wages in the industry and in the area, to the amenities provided

by it to labour and the fact that labour in this concern is drawn from the

villagers who have supplementary sources of income from agriculture,

the time has not come as yet for raising the scale of wages. The

welfare of the State demands the development of industries, which will

lead to the extension of avenues of employment and increased national

wealth. When the concerned industry is in a nascent state and if at that

stage an undue burden of wages is placed upon it, it may be nipped in

the bud and the avenues of employment, which the concerned industry

opened out might be closed. Such a state of affairs would recoil upon

the concerned workmen themselves as they would lose their

employment altogether. First the industry should be allowed to

establish on firm grounds, then there will be time enough for labour to

claim increase in wages. In raising the wages the stage of the

 146

development of the industry concerned its capacity to pay the prevailing

rates in that industry and other industries in that area and the

supplementary income source of labour should not be lost sight of. No

less important is also the fact that the cost of living index at that time

was showing a downward trend. The Tribunal applying the above

arguments to the facts of the case held that the demand for increase in

the minimum wages was unjustified.28

Thus it can be found that there was already a conflict of views in

the highest Labour Tribunal in the land on the question whether

capacity to pay had to be considered while fixing minimum wages due

to workmen in the earliest days.

4.3. SUPREME COURT ON WAGES

It was in the year 1958 the Supreme Court, for the first time in

Crown Aluminium Works v Their Workmen,29 evolved a harmonious

construction formula based on social justice for the purpose of wage

fixation, and had left a guideline for the tribunals to follow it in similar

cases. What happened in this case was that due to recession in

Aluminium Industry the management closed the rolling mills

permanently and brought about some retrenchment. It also revised the

M Id. af 312.

» AIR 1958, SC 30.

 147

wage structure of the workmen against which there was a lot of

agitation by the workmen. The Government referred the dispute to the

tribunal and the tribunal found that no employer could reduce the wages

to the prejudice of the workmen if the wages already fell in the category

of bare minimum wage. His Lordship, Justice Gajendragadkar

observed:

“There can be no doubt that in fixing the wage structure in

different industries, industrial adjudication attempts, gradually and by

stages though it may be, to attain the principle objective of a welfare

State, to secure to all citizens justice, social and economic.’ To the

attainment of this ideal the Indian Constitution has given a place of pride

and that is the basis of the new guiding principles of social welfare and

common good to which we have just referred.”29'1

Further it was observed that though social and economic justice

is the ultimate ideal of industrial adjudication, its immediate objective in

an industrial dispute relating to the wage structure is to settle the

dispute by constituting such a wage structure as would do justice to the

interests of both labour and capital which would establish harmony

between them and lead to their genuine and whole hearted cooperation

in the task of production. It is obvious that cooperation between capital

m Ibid.
 148

and labour would lead to more production and that naturally help

national economy and progress. In achieving this immediate objective,

industrial adjudication taken into account several principles such as the

principle of comparable wages, productivity of the trade or industry, cost

of living and ability of the industry to pay. The application of these and

other relevant principles leads to the construction of different categories

of wage structures, such as living wage, fair wage and minimum wage.

It is very difficult to define or even to describe accurately the contents of

these terms. In the case of an expanding national economy the

contents of these expressions are also apt to expand and vary. What

may be fair wage in a particular industry in one country may be living

wage in the same industry in another country. Similarly, what may be a

fair wage in a given industry today may cease to be fair and may border

on the minimum wage in future. Industrial adjudication has naturally to

apply carefully the relevant principles of wage structure and decide

every industrial dispute so as to do justice to both labour and capital.30

In deciding industrial disputes in regard to wage structure, one of

the primary objectives is and has to be the restoration of peace and

goodwill in the industry itself on a fair and just basis to be determined in

the light of all relevant considerations. There is, however, one principle,

30 Ibid.
 149

which admits of no exception i.e. no industry has a right to exist unless

it is able to pay its workmen at least a bare minimum wage. It is quite

likely that in an under developed country, where unemployment prevails

on a very large scale, unorganized labour may be available on

starvation wages, but the employment of labour on starvation wages

cannot be encouraged in a modem democratic welfare State, if an

employer cannot maintain his enterprise without cutting down the wages

of his employees below even a bare subsistence or minimum wage, he

would have no right to conduct his enterprise on such terms. We do not

think it would be correct to say that in no conceivable circumstances

can the wage structure be revised to the prejudice of workmen. When

we make this observation, we must add that even theoretically no wage

structure can or should be revised to the prejudice of workmen if the

structure in question falls in the category of the bare subsistence or the

minimum wage.31

If the wage structure in question falls in a higher category, then it

would be open to the employer to claim its revision even to the

prejudice of the workmen provided a case for such revision is made on

merits to the satisfaction of the tribunal. In dealing with a claim for such

revision, the tribunal may have to consider, as in the present case,

31
Id. at 35.
 150

whether the employer’s financial difficulties could not be adequately met

by retrenchment in persons already effected by the employer and

sanctioned by the tribunal. The tribunal must also keep in mind some

important practical considerations. Substantial reduction in the wage

structure is likely to lead to discontent among workmen and may result

in disharmony between the employer and his employees; and that

would never be for the benefit of the industry as a whole. On the other

hand, in assessing the value or importance of possible discontent

amongst workmen resulting from the reduction of wages, industrial

tribunals will also have to take into account the fact that if any industry is

burdened with a wage structure beyond its financial capacity, its very

existence may be in jeopardy and that would ultimately lead to

unemployment.32

It is thus clear that in all such cases all relevant considerations

have to be carefully weighed and an attempt has to be made in each

case to reach a conclusion which would be reasonable on the merits

and would be fair and just to both the parties. It is interesting to note

here that the Court viewed only three distinct levels of wages i.e. living

wage, fair wage and minimum wage, but used the different

11 Ibid.
 151

nomenclature to address the term ‘ minimum wage’ such as bare

minimum, bare subsistence wage.

The Supreme Court in Express News papers Ltd. V Union of

India,33 has analyzed different theories enunciated by economists on

wage fixation and had gone in depth studying the I.L.O. Conventions,

various Committees Reports and the position regarding the wage

structure prevailing in other countries. By an Act of Parliament, a Wage

Board was constituted to frame a wage structure for all journalists

woricing in the paper industry. In this case, the Wage Board did not pay

any regard to the capacity of the industry to pay while recommending

wage fixation to the Government and therefore, its award was

challenged as being bad and unreasonable. Excerpts from the

judgement, delivered by Bhagwati J are as follows:

Broadly speaking wages have been classified into three

categories viz. (1) the living wage (2) the fair wage and (3) the minimum

wage.

The concept of minimum wage:34

J1 Supra n. 24.

14 The Courtly qactedactenmvdy the fdgvmtportkiog cCfte Rqport ofthe Conimitlff’on Pair
of *\4hmr»ini vrmgr’ mnA ‘Pairyngc’
as defined by die Committee. However, it exjxtsaed its own views with regard to the
|n-irx»lpl<»« nf friratifin r»f‘mwitwmm lmy’faytha*
 152

In India, however, the level of national income is so low at present

that it is generally accepted that the country cannot afford to prescribe

by law a minimum wage, which would correspond to the concept of the

living wage. What would be the level of minimum wage, which can be

sustained by the present stage of the Country's economy? Most

employers and some Provincial Governments consider that the

minimum wage can at present be only a bare subsistence wage, in

fact, even one important Ail India Organization of employees has

suggested that a minimum wage is that wage, which is sufficient to

cover the bars physical needs of a worker and his family. Many others

however, consider that a minimum wage must provide not merely for

the bars subsistence of life but for the preservation of the efficiency of

the worker. For this purpose, the minimum wage must also provide for

some measure of education, medical requirements and other

amenities... There is also a distinction between a bare minimum or

minimum wage and a statutory minimum wage. The former is a wage

which would be sufficient to cover the bare physical needs of a worker

and his family that is a rate which has got to be paid to the worker

irrespective of the capacity of the industry to pay. If an industry is

unable to pay to its workmen at least a bare minimum wage it has no

right to exist. The statutory minimum wage however is the minimum,

which is prescribed by the Statute and it may be higher than the bare
 153

subsistence or minimum wage providing for some measure of

education, medical requirements and amenities, as contemplated

above.35

A fair wage is settled above the minimum wage and goes through

the process of approximating towards a living wage. While the lower

limit of the fair wage must obviously be the minimum wage, the upper

limit is equally set by what may broadly be called the capacity of the

industry to pay. The capacity of industry to pay can mean one of the

three things viz.,

1} the capacity of a particular unit (marginal, representative or

average) to pay;

II) the capacity of a particular industry as a whole to pay or;

III) the capacity of all industries in the country to pay.

In determining the capacity of an industry to pay it would be

wrong to take the capacity of a particular unit or the capacity of all

industries in the country. The relevant criterion should be the capacity

of a particular industry in a specified region and as far as possible, the

same wages should be prescribed for all units of that industry in that

region. It will obviously not be possible for the wage fixing Board to

15 Express News Papas Supra, n. 24 at 360.

 154

measure the capacity of each of the units of any industry in a region and

the only practicable method is to take a fair cross-section of that

industry. It is therefore clear, that the capacity of an industry to pay

should be gauged on an industry-cum-region basis after taking a fair

cross-section of that industry.36 Relying on these standards, the Court

laid down certain principles for general guidance:

(1) In fixing the rates of wages the capacity of the industry to

pay is one of the essential circumstances to be taken into

consideration except in the case of minimum where the

employer is bound to pay the same irrespective of such

capacity.

(2) The capacity of the industry to pay is to be considered on

an industry-cum-region basis after taking a fair cross

section of the industry.

(3) Factors like elasticity of demand and tightening of the

organization, etc., should be taken into account against

the ultimate background so that the burden may not be

such as to drive the employer out of business.37

M Id. at 361.

Ibid.
 156

gradually and by stages though it may be, to attain the principal

objective of a welfare State to secure to all citizens justice, social and

economic’. To the attainment of this ideal the Indian Constitution has

given a place of pride and that is the basis of the new guiding principles

of social welfare and common good to which we have just referred.”40

Further it was observed that so far as the bare minimum wage is

concerned, it has been held that no industry has the right to exist unless

it is able to pay its workmen at least a bare minimum wage; in other

words, minimum wage is the first charge on an industry. In Express

News Papers'41 the three concepts, the minimum wage, fair wage and

living wage were examined and it was pointed out that the content of

these three expressions was not fixed and static, and that it varies and

was bound to vary from time to time.42

In Standard Vacuum Refining Co. v Its Workmen,43 the workmen

claimed a bonus for the year 1956, equivalent to nine months total

earnings on the ground that the employers had admitted their capacity

to pay and that the wage actually received was less than the living

wage. The employers contended that they were paying a living wage

40 Id. at 446.

41 Supra.

n Ibid

4i Supra, n. 3.
 157

and that no bonus was due. The employers relying on the Report of

Textile Committee, 1940, contended that if the living wage there for

1940, is Rs. 55/- and if this was multiplied by 3.5 (due to a 35 per cent

rise in prices between 1940 and for 1956) it comes to Rs.192.55 as the

living wage for 1956, and they were paying their workmen more than

that. The workmen relied on the recommendations of the Indian Labour

Conference, 1957, to show that Rs.209.70 approximated to the need-

based minimum wage, and that the average wage paid by the

employers was fair, but that there was still a gap between the actual

wage and the living wage. The tribunal accorded a bonus equivalent to

five months basic wages. Both the parties challenged this award.

Speaking for the Court Gajendragadkar J. observed:

“It is well known that the problem of wage structure with which

industrial adjudication is concerned in a modem democratic State

involves in the ultimate analysis to some extent ethical and social

considerations. The advent of the doctrine of a Welfare State is based

on notions of progressive social philosophy, which have rendered the

old doctrine of laissez faire obsolete. In the nineteenth century the

relations between employers and employees were usually governed by

the economic principles of supply and demand, and the employers

thought that they were entitled to hire the labour on their terms and to

dismiss the same at their choice, subject to the specific terms of

 158

contract between them, if any. The theory of ‘hire and fire’ as well as

the theory of ‘supply and demand’, which were allowed free scope

under the doctrine of laissez faire no longer hold the field. In

constructing a wage-structure in a given case industrial adjudication

does take into account to some extent considerations of right and

wrong, propriety and impropriety, fairness and unfairness. As the social

conscience of the general community becomes more alive and active,

as the welfare policy of the State takes a more dynamic form, as the

national economy progresses from stage to stage, and as under the

growing strength of the trade union movement, the collective bargaining

enters the field and the wage-structure ceases to be a purely

arithmetical problem. Considerations of the financial position of the

employer and the state of the national economy have their say, and the

requirements of a workman living in a civilized and progressive society

also come to be recognized. It is in that sense, and no doubt to a

limited extent, that the social philosophy of the age supplies the

background for the decision of industrial disputes as to wage-structure.

It is because of this socio-economic aspect of the wage-structure that

industrial adjudication postulates that no employer can engage

industrial labour unless he pays it what may be regarded as the

minimum basic wage. If he cannot pay such a wage, he has no right to

engage labour, and no justification for carrying on his industry; in other

 159

words, the employment of sweated labour which would be easily

available to the employer in all undeveloped and even underdeveloped

countries is ruled out on the ground that the principle of supply and

demand has lost its validity in the matter of employment of human

labour, and that it is the duty of the society and the welfare State to

ensure to every workman engaged in industrial operations the payment

of what in the context of the times appears to be the basic minimum

wage. This position is now universally recognized.”44

Further it was observed that in dealing with wage-structure it is

usual to divide wages into three broad categories: the basic minimum

wage or the bare subsistence wage; above it is the fair wage; and

beyond the fair wage is the living wage. It would be obvious that the

concepts of these wages cannot be described in definite words because

their contents are elastic and they are bound to vary from time to time

and from country to country. Sometimes the said three categories of

wages are described as the poverty level, the subsistence level and the

comfort or the decency level. It would be difficult, and also inexpedient,

to attempt the task of giving an adequate precision to these concepts.

What is a subsistence wage in one country may appear to be much

below the subsistence level in another, the same is a fair wage in one

44
Hat 238.
 160

country may be treated as a living wage in another. Several attempts

have nevertheless been made to describe generally the contents of

these respective concepts from time to time.45

The Court then cited some attempts made in the past to define

the concept of wage including the Report of the Committee on Fair

Wages and consider the concept of living wage. Accordingly the Court

held that, looking at the problem of industrial wages as a whole, it would

not be possible to predicate that our wage structure has reached even

the level of a fair wage. It is possible that even some employers may be

paying a very high wage to their workmen, and in such a case it would

be necessary to examine whether the wages paid approximate to the

standard of the living wage; but in deciding this question the proper

approach to adopt would be to consider whether the wage structure in

question even approximately meets the legitimate requirements of the

components constituting the concept of living wage. For that purpose it

may be not essential to consider those affairs art this stage and even

may not be possible with the material produced before us to determine

what in terms of money those constituents would denote in the context

of today. And accordingly the Court upheld the award of the tribunal.46

45 Id at 239.

4#
lied 242.
 161

In relation to the above case it must be observed that the norms

of the Indian Labour Conference 1957 were placed before the Supreme

Court for the first time in this case. And this very fact has strengthened

the hands of the Court further to pronounce its views more bravely in

respect of matters which would normally be considered to be in the

realm of “economic policy” and “philosophy of the Government.”

In Novex Dry Cleaners v Its workmen,47 the dispute was over

wages between twenty dry cleaners, including the appellant and their

workmen and the same was referred for adjudication to the industrial

tribunal. A similar dispute between the workers and two other dry

cleaners, namely Snow White and Band Box was also referred to the

same tribunal and that reference ended in two awards as a result of a

settlement arrived at before the tribunal. In the larger reference, the

tribunal held that the case of Novex was different from the other twenty-

seven and similar to the Snow White and Band Box cases. Excerpts

from the judgment delivered by Gajendragadkar, J. follows:

“It appears from the award that the tribunal addressed itself

correctly to the true legal position governing the fixation of a wage

structure in industrial disputes. It realized that in deciding upon a wage

structure it may be relevant to take into account the wages prevailing in

41
1962IUJ271.SC.
 162

the industry in the said region, that the wages will have to be fixed in a

fair and just way and above all it would be necessary to examine

whether the wage structure proposed to be fixed would be fairiy and

reasonably borne by the financial position of the establishment. It is

now well settled that in fixing a minimum wage, the capacity of the

industry to pay that wage is not relevant. But in fixing a fair wage, the

capacity of the employer to bear the burden of the said wage is very

much relevant and very important factor. Therefore, there can be no

doubt that before fixing the wage structure, it was necessary that the

tribunal should have examined the financial position of the appellant

and came to a definite conclusion in that behalf.”478

Once again we find the Court reiterating its earlier view that

capacity to pay is really irrelevant when it comes to the question of

fixing a minimum wage. But we must also take a note of the fact that

lack of precision in terminology that is used regarding the concept of

‘minimum wage’ has resulted in all this confusion.

Next comes the famous case of Unichoy v State of Kerala.4** In

this case the Court dealt with the question of constitutional validity of the

Minimum Wages Act and the capacity of the employer to pay the

<?t Id at274.

* 19611 IXJ631.SC
 163

minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Ad by applying the

‘need based minimum wage’ norms as laid down by the 15* Session of

Indian Labour Conference 1957. The following are the other issues

considered by the Court in this case.488

(1) The wage structure recommended by the Committee by

following the criteria of need based minimum wage,

would lead to fair wage.

(2) That the observation made in Express Newspapers i.e.

the fixation of statutory minimum wage requires to be

considered the capacity of the employer to pay - is valid.

(3) The settlement arrived contrary to the provisions of the

Minimum Wages Act at the instance of the Government

taking in view the fact that thirty tile industries were

closed down because of the notification issued under the

Act - is valid.49

The Court held that the earlier decisions of this Court in Edward

Mills co90 and Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd,5' have firmly established the

m Though this case vm dealt already in n Chapter, emphasis had been kid oo certim other imes,
which are rdevuft for the present discussion.

49 Id. at 633.

x Supra n. 8
 164

Constitutional validity of the Act, and there can no longer be any doubt

that in fixing the minimum wage rates as contemplated by the Act, the

hardship caused to individual employers or their inability to meet the

burden has no relevance. What the Act purports to achieve is to

prevent exploitation of labour and for that purpose it authorizes the

appropriate Government to take steps to prescribe the minimum rates of

wages in the scheduled industries. In an underdeveloped country,

which faces the problem of unemployment on a very large scale it is not

unlikely that labour may offer to work even on starvation wage.52 The

policy of the Act is to prevent the employment of such sweated labour in

the interest of general public and so in prescribing the minimum wage

rates, the capacity of employer need not be considered. What is being

prescribed are only the minimum wage rates, which a welfare State

assumes every employer must pay before he employs the labour.53

The Petitioners alleged that the minimum wage rates are very

much above the level of what may be properly regarded as minimum

wages and it was essential that before the impugned wage rates were

prescribed the employer’s capacity to pay should have been

51 Supra n. 12

31 Vide: Crown AUumirtium Works v Thatr Workman, (supra).

31 Unichoy Supra, n. 48 at 635.

 165

considered. According to them the burden imposed by the notification

is beyond the financial capacity of the industry.54

The Committee, which was constituted by the Government,

consisted of eight members, three of whom were the employers'

representatives and three were the employees’ representatives and

while the Chairman was a Professor of Economics in the University

College at Trivandrum, and another independent member was the

District Labour Officer. The report of the Committee consisted of five

chapters. Chapter I dealt with the development of the tile industry in

Kerala. Chapter II dealt with the problem of standardization in the tile

industry. Chapter III dealt with the problems of wage structure area

wise. Chapter IV dealt with the problem of minimum wage fixation, its

principles and procedure and the final Chapter recorded the conclusions

and recommendations of the Committee. The Committee has accepted

the observation of the Fair Wages Committee that the minimum wage

"must provide not merely for bare subsistence of life but for the

preservation of the efficiency of the worfcer." Then the Committee

examined the food requirements of the employees on the basis of three

consumption units recognized in Dr. Aykroyd’s formula. It then adopted

the assessment made by the Planning Commission and placed the

54 Ibid.
 166

employee’s requirement at a per capita consumption of 18 yards per

unit, then it took into account the requirement of housing and it held that

additional requirements for fuel, lighting and additional miscellaneous

items of expenditure should generally be fixed at 20 per cent of the total

wage in cases where the actual percentage has not been found out by a

family budget enquiry. In this regard it was held that, the Committee

came to the conclusion that a minimum wage must provide not merely

for the bare subsistence of life but for the preservation of the efficiency

of the worker, and so it must also provide for some measure of

education, medical requirements and amenities. The concept about the

components of the minimum wage thus enunciated by the Committee

has been generally accepted by industrial adjudication in this country.

Some times the minimum wage is described as a bare minimum wage

in order to distinguish it from the wage structure which is ‘subsistence

plus’ or fair wage, but too much emphasis on the adjective “bare” in

relation to the minimum wage is apt to lead to the erroneous

assumption that the maintenance wage is a wage which enables the

worker to cover his bare physical needs and keep himself just above

starvation. That clearly is not intended by the concept of minimum

wage. On the other hand, since the capacity of the employer to pay is

treated as irrelevant it is but right that no addition should be made to the

components of the minimum wage which would take the minimum wage
 167

near the lower level of the fair wage, but the contents of this concept

must ensure for the employee not only his sustenance and that of his

family but must also preserve his efficiency as a worker. The Act

contemplates that minimum wage rates should be fixed in the

scheduled industries with the dual object of providing sustenance and

maintenance of the worker and his family and preserving his efficiency

as a worker. The Committee recognized regional differences and so

introduced five Grades classified as A, B, C, D and E for the purpose of

fixing the wage structure. The final notification was issued

accordingly.55

Further the Court held that, cases are not unknown where

statutes prescribe a minimum and it is plain from the relevant statutory

provisions themselves that the minimum thus prescribed is not the

economic or industrial minimum but contains several components which

takes the statutorily prescribed minimum near the level of the fair wage,

and when that is the effect of the statutory provision capacity to pay

may no doubt have to be considered. It was a statutory wage structure

of this kind with which the Court was dealing in the case of Express

Newspapers Ud,m because Sec. 9 of the Working Journalists Act, 1955

35 Id. at 639.

st Supra n. 24
 168

authorized the imposition of a wage structure very much above the level

of the minimum wage and it is obvious that the observations made in

the judgement cannot, and should not, be divorced from the context of

the provisions with respect to which it was pronounced. Therefore,

there is no hesitation in rejecting the argument that because the Act

prescribed minimum wage rates it is necessary that the capacity of the

employer to bear the burden of the said wage structure must be

considered. The attack against the validity of the notification made on

this ground must therefore fail.57

Regarding the issue that soon after the notification was issued as

many as 62 tile factories in Trichur closed their works and that led to

unemployment of nearly 6,000 employees. In order to resolve the

deadlock thus created the Government referred the dispute for

adjudication. The final award was passed as a result of a settlement

between the parties permitting a departure from the notification in

respect of 62 tile factories, despite the existence of Sec. 25 58 under the

Act. It was observed that, it is to be regretted that the respondent,

acting through its Labour Minister, appears to have assisted in bringing

57 Unkhoy Supra, n. 48 at 644.

9 Uixler this Sectwn any cwaract or agreement, whether made before or after the commencement of
the Act, whereby an employee either fdmquidiei or reduces Ub right to a mhmmm rate or
wages or any privilege or concession accruing to him under the Act shall be null and void in
so far as it purports to reduce fee mmtmutn rate ofwages fixed under 1he Minimum Wage*
Act, 1948.
 169

about a settlement contrary to the terms of the Act. If the respondent

thought that such a settlement was necessary in respect of Trichur

factories it may consider the question of withdrawing the notification in

respect of that area and in fitness may also reconsider the problem in

respect of all the other areas and decide whether any modification in the

notification is required. It is not appropriate that the respondent should

be associated, though indirectly with the settlement which is in breach

of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it was suggested that the

respondent should seriously consider this aspect of the matter and

should not hesitate to do what may appear to be just, reasonable and

fair on an objective consideration of the whole problem.58

Finally, the Court held that it is impossible to accept the argument

that the wage structure ultimately recommended by the Committee is

anything higher than what the Committee thought to be the minimum

wage-structure. Therefore the Court is not prepared to hold that the

notification, which is in conformity with the recommendations of the

Committee, has prescribed wage rates, which are higher than the

minimum wage structure. If that be so, failure to take into account the

capacity of the industry to bear the burden can introduce no infirmity

59 Umcboy Supra, n.48 at 640.

 170

either in the recommendations of the Committee or in the notification

following upon them.60

It is the above case that may really be considered as a classical

land- mark case. The speciality of this judgement is not only that it

referred approvingly to the norms of the 15th Indian Labour Conference

but also that it adopted the said formula for working out minimum rates

of wages under the Minimum Wages Act as its own, thus raising the

formula to the stature of the law of the land.81

In Hindustan Times Ltd. V Their Workmen,62 the employer

challenged the wage structure and fixation of Dearness Allowance by

the industrial tribunal on the ground that the principles adopted were

improper. In this regard, the Court made the following observations:

The fixation of wage structure is among the most difficult tasks

that industrial adjudication has to tackle. On the one hand, not only the

demands of social justice but also the claims of the national economy

require that attempts should be made to secure to workmen a fair share

of the national income which they help to produce. On the other hand,

care has to be taken that the attempt at a fair distribution does not tend

“ Ibid.

61 Article 141 ofthelndianOnrtitiitioadedara that tlx law laid <kwn by tix Sopr^
the law ofthe land.

si AIR 1963 SC 1332.

 171

to dry up the source of the national income itself. Better living

conditions for workmen can only be possible by giving them a living

wage, which wilt tend to increase the nation’s wealth and income. On

the other hand, unreasonable inroads on the profits of the capitalists

might have a tendency to drive capital away from fruitful employment

and even to affect prejudicially capital formation itself. The rise in prices

that often results from the rise in workmen’s wages may, in its turn,

affect other members of the community and may even affect

prejudicially the living conditions of the workmen themselves. At the

bottom of the ladder, there is the minimum basic wage, which the

employer of any industrial labour must pay in order to be allowed to

continue an industry. Above this is the fair wage which may roughly be

said to approximate to the need based minimum in the sense of a wage

which is adequate to cover the normal needs of the average employee

regarded as a human being in a civilized society.”63

Further the Court held that when the proper principles have been

applied by the tribunal in the matter of fixation of wage scale, it is not

the practice of this Court to interfere.64

® Id. at 1336

44 Ibid
 172

Finally in The Workmen of Reptakus Brett Co. Ud v Reptakus

Brett Co Ltd?6 the workmen challenged the restructuring of

Dearness Allowance to their prejudice by the management. This is an

appeal against the order of the industrial tribunal and the judgment of

the Madras High Court.

The Supreme Court held that the wage structure can be divided into

three categories: the “basic minimum wage” which provides bare

subsistence and is at poverty level a little above is the “fair wage” and

finally the “living wage”, which comes at comfort level. It is not possible

to demarcate these levels with any precision. There are however well

accepted norms, which broadly distinguish one category of pay

structure form another. The concept of minimum wage is no longer the

same as it was in 1936, even 1957 is way behind. A worker’s wage is

no longer a contract between an employer and an employee. It has the

force of collective bargaining under the labour laws. Each category of

the wage structure has to be tested at the anvil of social justice, which is

the live fabrie of our society today. The Tripartite Committee of the

Indian Labour Conference (1957) declared the wage policy, which has

to be followed. The Committee accepted the five norms for the fixation

of “minimum wage”, keeping in view the socio-economic aspect of the

«5 AIR 1992 SC 504.

 173

wage structure and the Court felt that it is necessary to add the (vi)

additional component as a guide for fixing the minimum wage in the

country.

(i) Children education, medical requirement minimum

recreation including festivals/ceremonies and provision for

old age, marriage should further constitute 25 per cent of

the total minimum wage.

The wage structure, which approximately answers the above six

components is nothing more than a minimum wage at subsistence level.

The employees are entitled to the minimum wage at all times and under

all circumstances. An employer who cannot pay the minimum wage

has no right to engage the labour and no justification to run the

industry.66

One can easily imagine that the above case pertains to the

concept of ‘industrial minimum wage’. The sixth component as inserted

by the Court contains exactly the components of living wage as defined

by the Committee on Fair Wages. In India the organized labour with the

strength of collective bargaining failed to reach even proper fair wage,

N
Idea 509.
 174

let alone the living wage and the unorganized labour got pushed into the

depth of starvation wage.

Although the Court used different nomenclature in different

situations as dealt in above, there is sufficient basis to conclude that the

statutory minimum wage is the need-based minimum wage. The

expression 'industrial minimum wage’ is contextually different, since it

refers to the prevalent lowest wage in a particular industry. It can even

be higher than the need-based minimum wage or iower, and if it is

lower, the need-based minimum wage could be taken as the yardstick

for fixing the wage structure.

Having discussed all the important case law pertaining to the

"minimum wage” and the decisions arrived at therein; it is proposed to

analyze the above case law in order to ascertain the ratio that has

emerged therein, for the purpose of establishing the correct legal

position of the concept of need-based minimum wage.

 4 .4 . RATIO OF THE SUPREM E COURT ON MINIMUM W A G E

Year and
NAME OF THE CASE iNo. of BRIEF FACTS QUESTION IN ISSUE HELD OBSERVED COMMENTS
1Judges.
BIJAY COTTON Minimum Wage Whether in-capacity to pay Capacity to pay the minimum
MILLS 1955 notification die minimum wages a valid wages fixed under the Act is

'
NO irrelevant
VS 5 Challendged by defiance
STATE OF AJMER employer

CROWN Downward revision of Can a wage below bare Bare subsistence and minimum
ALLUMINIUM 1958 wages due to financial subsistence/minimum wage used synonymously. Equating bare
VS 3 difficulties be revised down wards?
NO I subsistence with minimum wages
THEIR WORKMEN opens the door for confusion.

Wage Board Is fixation of fair wage In fixing statutory Bare subsistence and minimum
EXPRESS NEWS recommending fair ignoring die capacity to pay minimum wage wages used synonymously which
PAPERS 1958 valid NO Capacity to pay opens the door for confusion.
wage without
VS 5 considering the must be
UNION OF INDIA capacity to pay considered.*

Employer contending W hether the workers paid Employer who Equation o f basic minimum
that living wage a bar the living wages, whether cannot pay the wage to bare subsistence is
t

STANDARD VACCUM
1961
O
JS

VS to pay the bonus the wages reached the minimum wages further strengthened.
3
UNION OF INDIA standard o f living wage has no right to
exist.
 176

Year and

i
NAME OF TOE CASE No. of BRIEF FACTS QUESTION IN ISSUE OBSERVED COMMENTS
Judges.

Is capacity to pay relevant ■JB

Minimum wages «
§30*0
fl

UNICHOY fixed under die Act when minimum wages is l1

2^

CM
\
is .
f * SP

VS using the ILC Norms fixed under the Act using NO

S“»
STATE OF KERALA die ILC Norms?
& Employer
Challenging the same

Employer Can capacity to pay be The decision equating upper

HINDUSTAN TIMES limit of need based minimum
1963 questioning of wage ignored while fixing the 1
VS YES
4 fixation adopted by Minimum basic wage? wage to the lower limit of fair
THEIR WORKMEN
the Tribunal wage.

Workmen Can there be reduction of I Historic Judgment upholding the

THE WORKMEN

w*
CM
challenging die D. A. before the Need ILC Norms in respect of wage
£
O
'

VS
reduction of D. A. by based Minimum Wage is disputes for Organised
REPTAKOS BRETT CO.
the employer. satisfied. industries.

• This Observation is pertaining to the Minimum Wage Fixation under die Statute other than the Minimum Wages Act 1948. This
view was taken by the Supreme Court in Unichoy V State of Kerala.

** Confirmation of the Ratio already heal by the Supreme Court.

4 .6 . BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE DECISIONS GIVEN BY THE SUPREME COURT.

CASE NO. 1 : Minimum W age fixed under the Act must be paid irrespective of the capacity of the employer to pay.

CASE NO. 2 : A wage below bare subsistence or minimum wage cannot be further reduced.

CASE NO. 3 : Capacity to pay is a relevant factor for fixing a fair wage’.

CASE NO. 4 : Bonus is payable where the existing wage is below living wage.

CASE NO. 5 : Capacity to pay is irrelevant where the Minimum Wage is fixed Under the Minimum Wages Act
using ILC Norms

CASE NO. 6 : Capacity to pay is not relevant while fixing minimum basic wage.

CASE NO. 7 : A criterion must be added to ILC Norms and this Need Based Minimum Wage must be paid
Irrespective of the capacity to pay in the cases of industrial minimum wage.

NOTE : The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in above 7 cases is harmonious in nature and therefore constitutes the
Law of the Land, when is taken in its entirety. However, in Hindustan Times Ltd Justice Gajendragadakar did
raise the question whether capacity to pay, ought to be considered when the upper limit of Need Based Minimum
Wage coincides with lower limit of Fair Wage. He answered the question affirmatively. But in view of the facts
and circumstances of the case his observations are in the nature of obiter dicta.
 116

Of all the case law discussed above only three cases are having

a direct bearing upon the minimum wages that are fixed under the

Minimum Wages Act. It is important to note the fact that in Bijay Cotton

Mills67 the ratio is very clear that the Court substantiated its view

regarding the minimum wage that is fixed under the Minimum Wages

Act to that of the definition of 'minimum wage’ as defined by the

Committee on Fair Wages. Hence the minimum wage under the Act

must not only ensure bare physical subsistence but also the

maintenance of health and decency of the worker and his family.

In Unichoy68 the Supreme Court equated the minimum wage fixed

under the Minimum Wages Act to that of the concept of need based

minimum wage as evolved by the 15th Session of Indian Labour

Conference. Thus the Court recognized and laid down the criteria to

arrive at the quantum to fix the minimum rates of wages under the

Minimum Wages Act. Though some States apparently adopted these

norms while fixing or revising the minimum rates of wages under the

Act, yet the fact of prevailing low rates of minimum wages remains

undisputed. The reasons obviously are many, which are explored and

made open in the next chapter.

Unfortunately after this landmark case the controversy regarding

the need based minimum wage does not appear to have come squarely

before the Supreme Court. The expression unfortunately is used in

87 Supra n. 12
68 Supra n. 48
 179

order to draw the attention to the fact that even though enough

opportunities arose in the country for workmen to take up the question

before the Supreme Court, such an exercise was never undertaken

effectively.

Up to a certain point the Government of India strengthens a

labour jurisprudence based essentially on Directive Principles of State

Policy69 Until that stage the Judiciary and Executive worked in tandem

keeping the interests of workers and employers in mind. Later the

Government of India not losing the sight of this situation started

suggesting the low minimum rates of wages as a policy matter by

pragmatic considerations, which has resulted in gradual reducing of the

content of the norms as evolved by the 15th Indian Labour Conference

and thus legalised the existing low wages with the assistance of the

views of various Experts and Commissions. How the Government

legitimised this controversy is the next issue before us.

85 ArtkJes39,43/i5 and 46 oftheO»stitutk»ptWTdespedrtk directives in the matter of labour

interests exclusively.