⚖️ Critical Analysis of the Objective Clause of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948

on

 ⚖️ Critical Analysis of the Objective Clause of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948

Statutory Preamble and Its Ambiguity:

The Act opens with the following words:

“An Act to provide for fixing minimum rates of wages in certain employments.”
"Whereas it is expedient to provide for fixing minimum rates of wages in certain employments;"

The expression "certain employments" is vague and raises concerns of inclusivity, equality, and universality of the law. It lacks definitional precision, which is fundamental in legislative drafting, especially when labour rights and livelihood are at stake.

🧾 "Certain Employments" = Scheduled Employments

Under Section 2(g) of the Act, “scheduled employment” refers to an employment specified in the Schedule to the Act. This includes only those sectors listed by the appropriate government, which results in:

  1. Selective Protection: Only workers in scheduled employments are entitled to minimum wage protections.

  2. Exclusion by Omission: Workers in non-scheduled sectors are legally excluded unless a notification is issued.

🔍 Critique and Judicial Commentary:

  • In Unichoyi v. State of Kerala (AIR 1962 SC 12), the Supreme Court upheld the Act but did not clarify the rationality behind excluding non-scheduled employments.

  • The ambiguity of “certain employments” permits policy discretion, but also creates legislative loopholes and unequal enforcement.

  • It conflicts with Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 23 (prohibition of forced labour) of the Constitution when people doing similar work are unequally protected based on whether their employment is “scheduled” or not.

🛠️ Practical Consequences of the Narrow Scope:

  1. Gig workers, domestic workers, platform-based freelancers, and other informal workers are not covered unless explicitly notified.

  2. It fails to address the evolving nature of employment in the digital and service economy.

  3. This loophole leads to wage suppression, non-standard employment, and labour exploitation.

✅ Suggested Reform:

  • Replace “certain employments” with “all employments, unless exempted”.

  • Introduce a universal floor wage mechanism under central legislation, as recommended by the Code on Wages, 2019, which seeks to replace the Minimum Wages Act.

  • Ensure periodic inclusion and automatic review of new employment sectors.

📌 Conclusion:

The Minimum Wages Act, 1948, while well-intentioned, suffers from a foundational ambiguity in its objective clause. The reliance on “certain employments” tied to scheduled employment excludes a vast segment of workers, undermining the Act’s social justice mandate. A more inclusive legislative approach, such as that proposed in the Code on Wages, 2019, is essential to realize the constitutional promise of dignity, equality, and fair remuneration for all workers.

Comments

Post a Comment