Minimum Wages Act Labour Law Project

LABOUR LAW PROJECT TOPIC – MINIMUM WAGES ACTCONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY AND NEW ASPECT

1.) The minimum wages act up hails the ARTICLE ARTICLE 43 of the Indian constitution, which states that, Living wage, e!, "#$ w#$%e$&  The !tate shall endea"o# to secu#e, $% suita$le legislation o# economic o#gani&ation o# in an% othe# wa%, to all wo#'e#s, ag#icultu#al, indust#ial o# othe#wise, wo#', a li"ing wage, conditions of wo#' ensu#ing a decent standa#d of life and full en(o%ment of leisu#e and social and cultu#al oppo#tunities and, in pa#ticula#, the !tate shall endea"o# to p#omote cottage indust#ies on an indi"idual o# coope#ati"e $asis in #u#al a#eas 

 The spi#it of the minimum wages act of India is #elied #elied in the soul on of the a#ticle 43 1 of Indian constitution, which !A*L+ !A*L+ is ensh#ined in pa#t I of the constitution and hence is non-enfo#cea$le $% law. law. .) Anothe# constitutional p#o"ision p#o"ision that the minimum wages act is said to def% is the ARTICLE 1/01g) which sa%s that

'T# ($a!i!e an) ($#"e&&i#n #$ # !a$$) #n an) #!!*(ai#n, $a+e #$ *&ine&&e&

It is uestioned $% ce#tain (u#ists that the p#o"isions of the minimum wages act that as' fo# p#o"iding a 2ed minimum wage $% the emplo%e#s to the la$ou#s is a AR to thei# fundamental #ight gua#anteed unde# 1/01g).

of Constitution Constitution of India India deals with the topic topic of Living wage, etc., for workers 1 Article 43 of

ut this uestion has $een #aised again and again in the hono#a$le cou#ts which ha"e dissented f#om this opinion and upheld the "alidit% of minimum wages act. In GUL MUAMMAD TARA SAEB VS STATE O. BOMBAY /, 5he#e the hono#a$le cou#t pointed out that the p#o"ision of 1/01g) is su$(ect to #est#iction ensh#ined in 1/06) of the Indian constitution. A#ticle 1/06) states that, 7othing in su$ clause 0g) of the said clause shall a8ect the ope#ation of an% eisting law in so fa# as it imposes, o# p#e"ent the Sae "$#0 0a%ing an)

1aw i0(#&ing, in 2e ine$e&& #" 2e gene$a1 (*1i! , #easona$le #est#ictions on the ee#cise of the #ight confe##ed $% the said su$ clause.

e$e in 34567 2e w#$+&, '2e ine$e& #" gene$a1 (*1i!8 !$eae& a $e&$i!i#n #n 2e e9e$!i&e #" 2i& $ig2 wi2 $e&(e! # (*1i! #$+e$ i:e # ($e&e$ve (*1i! #$+e$, 2e $ig2 !an e !*$ai1e+:  The same uestion was #aised in V:UNICOV VS STATE O. ;ERALA 346/, And the cou#t upheld the "iew of 9:L ;:ALIT+. ut this "iew is also put down $% the cou#ts th#oughout the nation.

In BI;USA v& SANGAMARA  1/63

I wa& 2e1+ ) 2e !#*$ 2a (e$&#n w#*1+ e 1ia1e # +i