Living Wage
Article 43 requires the state to endeavour to secure, by suitable legislation, or economic organisation, or in any other way, to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full employment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities. In particular, the state is to promote cottage industries on an individual or co-operative basis in rural areas. Article 43 imposes an obligation towards ensuring the provision of a ‘living wage’ in all sectors as well as acceptable conditions of work. This provision enunciates the revolutionary doctrine that employees are entitled as of right to certain reliefs.
A ‘living wage’ is such wage as enables the male earner to provide for himself and his family not merely the bare essentials of food, clothing and shelter, but includes education for children, protection against ill-health, requirements of essential social needs, and a measure of insurance against the more important misfortunes including old age.
A ‘minimum wage’, on the other hand, is just sufficient to cover the bare physical needs of a worker and his family. Minimum wage is to be fixed in an industry irrespective of its capacity to pay. Fixation of minimum wage is in public interest and does not impose an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on a trade guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g). (Edward Mills Co. v. Ajmer, AIR 1955 SC 25).
A ‘fair wage’ is a mean between ‘living wage’ and ‘minimum wage’. ‘Living’ and ‘fair’ wages have to be fixed keeping in view the capacity of the industry to pay. Commenting on Article 43, the Supreme Court has observed that while our political aim is ‘living wage’ for workers, in actual practice, this ideal has eluded our efforts so far and that our general wage structure has at best reached the lower level of ‘fair wage.’ (All India Reserve Bank Employees v. Reserve Bank, AIR 1966 SC 305) .
To provide social justice to the unorganised labour and to prevent exploitation, the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was enacted. The Act has been characterised “just the first step” in the direction of fulfilling the mandate given under Article 43. It provides for the fixation of minimum rates of wages by the central or state governments within a specified period for workers employed in certain scheduled employments. The minimum wage in any event must be paid irrespective of the capacity of the industry to pay.
The Supreme Court has rejected the argument that the pattern of wage fixation in case of government companies in public sector should necessarily be different from companies in private sector, arguing that Article 39 and 43 would be disobeyed if distinction is made between the same class of labourers on the ground that some of them are employed in state enterprises and others in private enterprises.
(Hindustan Antibiotics v. Workmen, AIR 1967 SC 948) Payment of a statutory minimum bonus even when the management sustains a loss is justifiable under Articles 39 and 43. ( JalanTrading Co. v. D.M. Aney, AIR 1979 SC 233).
In D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130) the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but also by the broader significance it is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice by providing economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to the aging process and, therefore, one is required to fall back upon savings.
The Court emphasized on three features while describing the nature of pension given to a government servant on retirement, thereof:
(1) Pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and it creates a vested right;
(2) pension is not an ex gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered; and
(3) it is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the pinnacle of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch.
The proposition that the pension and gratuity are not regarded as bounty by the state but these are regarded as statutory rights has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in several cases. (D.V. Kapoor v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1923).
The primary aim of a socialist state is to eliminate inequality in income, status and standards of life. This envisages economic equality and equitable distribution of income.
Comments