Labour Notes
Labour Notes
S.2(h)- definition of wage- all renumeration capable of being expressed in terms of money
which would be payable if employment contract’s terms were fulfilled but doesn tinclude-
1. House zccomodation and other ameniites
2. Contribution by employer in any pension or provident fund
3. Travelling allowance
4. Sum paid to the employee to defray special expenses
5. Gratutiy payment
Section 4- outlines the components of the minimum rate of wages that may be fixed or
revised by the appropriate government for scheduled employments. The minimum wage can
be structured in three possible ways: (i) as a basic rate of wages accompanied by a special
cost of living allowance, which is to be adjusted periodically based on changes in the cost of
living index; (ii) as a basic wage with or without the cost of living allowance, along with the
cash value of concessions such as essential commodities provided at subsidized rates; or (iii)
as an all-inclusive rate that incorporates the basic wage, cost of living allowance, and the
value of such concessions. Additionally, the cost of living allowance and the cash value of
concessions are to be computed by a competent authority in accordance with directions
issued by the appropriate government at specified intervals. This provision ensures that the
wages remain responsive to inflation and changes in the cost of living.
Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 provides a mechanism for employees to claim
wages that fall short of the minimum prescribed or for unpaid dues related to rest days,
overtime, or similar entitlements. The appropriate government may appoint a Commissioner
for Workmen’s Compensation, a Labour Commissioner, or an experienced judicial officer as
the Authority to hear and decide such claims. A claim can be filed by the employee, a legal
representative, a trade union official, an inspector, or any authorized person within six
months of the due date, with provisions for condoning delays for valid reasons. Upon
hearing both parties, the Authority may direct the employer to pay the shortfall along with
compensation up to ten times the short-paid amount or a fixed sum in other cases.
Malicious or false claims can lead to penalties against the claimant. The recovery of awarded
amounts may be treated like fines imposed by a Magistrate. The Authority's decision is final
and it exercises the powers of a Civil Court for taking evidence, enforcing witness
attendance, and summoning documents, and is deemed a Civil Court for certain criminal
procedure provisions as well.
Kamani metals and alloys v their workmen: (imp) minimum wage must proivded without
considering profits. Sets the lowest bar of wages. Fair wages are wages which are provided
more than minimum based on ability of employer and provides for a standard family with
food shelter and clothing . Living wage includes fair wage along with a frugal comfort with
food, shelter, clothing, medical care and old age.
Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. v. Workmen (imp) (1964) 5 SCR 362, This case involved a wage
dispute between four interconnected companies, led by Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd., and their
workmen. The matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of wages and
dearness allowance. The Tribunal applied the industry-cum-region formula, placing more
emphasis on the regional aspect for clerical and subordinate staff since the companies were
engaged in different lines of business and few comparable concerns existed in the region.
For factory workmen, the Tribunal fixed wages without comparing them to similar
industries, which the Supreme Court found to be incorrect. The Court upheld uniform
dearness allowance for all employees drawing equal wages—clerical or factory workers—on
the basis that the cost of living affects all employees equally. The Supreme Court approved
the Tribunal’s reasoning for clerical staff but partially struck down the wage fixation for
factory workers due to lack of proper comparables. The judgment reinforced the correct
application of the industry-cum-region formula in wage adjudication. the Supreme Court
emphasized that fair wages should take into account regional wage patterns and industrial
comparability to prevent unfair disparities. The Fair Wages Committee Report (1949) also
elucidated that a fair wage must consider both "capacity to pay" (employer’s economic
viability) and "comparable wages in similar industries" (industry-cum-region formula). This
ensures that wages are neither too low to be exploitative nor too high to impair industrial
competitiveness.
Crown aluminium works v their woekmen: starvation wages cant be encouraged and
minimum wages are payuable irrespective of rofits. If even minimum wages not payable
then employer has no right to do business.
Union of India v. Express Newspaper Ltd.[5] ‘Fair pay’ was described by Das Gupta J. as “a
salary sufficient to meet the usual requirements of the ordinary employee seen as a human
being in a civilized society, which may generally be said to correspond to the need based
minimum.
Standard Vacuum Refining Company of India Ltd. v. Its Workmen The minimum piece rate
fixing mechanism typically involves a consultation process with stakeholders such as
employers, employees, and industry representatives to ensure that the rate is fair and
reasonable for all parties. The rate is usually reviewed periodically to ensure that it remains
relevant and fair over time as per the decision taken by the Court on
Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. v. The State of Ajmer (1955 AIR 33, 1955 SCR 752)
The case of Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. v. The State of Ajmer was a landmark decision concerning
the constitutionality of minimum wage legislation in India. The petitioners, Bijay Cotton Mills
Ltd., challenged the validity of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, arguing that the imposition of
minimum wages violated their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian
Constitution, which guarantees the freedom to practice any profession or carry on any
occupation, trade, or business. The company contended that the Act unreasonably restricted
their ability to negotiate wages freely with their workers, thereby interfering with their right
to conduct business.
The Supreme Court, however, upheld the constitutional validity of the Minimum Wages Act,
1948, emphasizing that the law was enacted to prevent the exploitation of labor and ensure
that workers received fair remuneration for their work. The Court held that the right to carry
on a business is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of
the general public. The Court also observed that fixing a minimum wage does not amount to
an unreasonable restriction on business, as it seeks to protect vulnerable workers from
unfair wage practices. This judgment reinforced the principle that labor welfare is an
essential aspect of economic justice and that minimum wage laws serve a legitimate public
interest by securing social and economic equality.
N.M. Wadia Charitable Hospital v. State of Maharashtra (1986 AIR 765, 1986 SCR (2) 1092)
The case of N.M. Wadia Charitable Hospital v. State of Maharashtra dealt with the
applicability of minimum wage laws to charitable institutions. The dispute arose when the
State of Maharashtra sought to apply the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, to
workers employed in N.M. Wadia Charitable Hospital, a non-profit organization. The hospital
contested this application, arguing that being a charitable institution, it was not engaged in a
"trade" or "business" and, therefore, should not be subject to the provisions of the Act. The
hospital also contended that its financial resources were limited, and imposing minimum
wage requirements would significantly burden its ability to provide free or affordable
medical services.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Maharashtra, holding that even though the
hospital was a charitable institution, it still functioned as an employer and engaged labor for
its operations. The Court clarified that the nature of the institution does not exempt it from
adhering to labor laws, particularly when it involves protecting the rights of employees. The
judgment reinforced the principle that minimum wage laws are applicable to all
establishments, irrespective of their profit-making motives, as the primary objective of such
laws is to ensure the well-being and financial security of workers. The Court further
emphasized that economic hardship cannot be a justification for paying workers below the
legally mandated minimum wage, as labor rights are fundamental to economic and social
justice.
This ruling reaffirmed the judiciary's commitment to protecting labor rights and ensuring
that all employers, including charitable organizations, comply with labor welfare laws
designed to prevent exploitation and provide fair wages.
Unit-2
Sahibabad Cold Storage & Ice Factory v. Commissioner of Payment of Wages (AIR 1965 SC
580)
The Supreme Court held that the employer is responsible for ensuring timely payment of
wages to employees, even if there are financial constraints. The Court ruled that economic
hardship does not absolve an employer from their statutory obligations under the Act.
Unit-3
Important sections- 11, 13, 18, 19, 21, 45
Section 2(m)- Definition of factory- 10 or more workers with aid of power in past 12
months OR 20 ore more workers in past 12 months wihtout aid of power EXCEPT
mines, army, railway shed, hotel, restaurant.
Section 2(k)- manufacturing process-
Section 2(l)- worker- employed with/without knowledge of principle emplyer,
whether contractual, whether receiving wage, employed for anything related to the
manufacturing process
Section 2(n)- occupier- person or groups who have utimate control of the factory-
partners in partnership, directors in company, apppinted person in govt company nd
owner of ship or master or agent in case of ship.
Ardeshir H. Bhiwandiwala v state og bombay- (related to definition of factory) salt
works where process of covnerting sea water into salt is carried in open and is part
of premises.
Section 15- artifical humidifcation- state government to provide relervant rules and
prescribing standards, regulation of methods, directing prescribed tests and water to
be purified for artifical humidification.
Section 18- provide for drinking water at reasonable places and conveintly laid down
ntoice that water is clean for drinking
Section 19 mandates that every factory must provide adequate and accessible
latrine and urinal facilities for workers, ensuring separate enclosed accommodations
for male and female workers. These facilities must be properly ventilated, well-lit,
and not directly connected to workrooms, except through ventilated passages. They
must be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all times, with sweepers
specifically appointed for this purpose. In factories employing more than 250
workers, all latrines and urinals must be of prescribed sanitary types, with walls and
floors finished in impervious materials like glazed tiles, and cleaned thoroughly at
Section 28- hoists and lifts- good mechanical construction, sound material and
strnth, examined in 6 months, protected by gates and have safegaurds for
entrapment, maximum load specified.
Section 32- safety regarding floors steps and stairs and passageways- safe access and
avoid slippage and maintain fencing at dangerious places
Section 34- no excessive wreight lifting
Section 36- protection agaisnt dangerious fumes- not to enter chamber, tank, vat,
pipe or any cofined space with fumes or gas dangerious. Only to enter after
practicable measures for safety ensured icnluding permissible limits for such
dangerous fumes. Only portable light to be used here
Welfare facilities
Section 42- washing and sitting facilities
Section 45- first aid appliances and ambulance room
Section 47- canteen, rest rooms and lunch rooms
Section 49- welfare officers with 500 workers or more
Wages must be paid within 15 days (or 30 days for public utility).
UNIT-4
Section 2(1)d- definition of dependant
Section 2(1)g- Partial disablement
Section 2(1)I- total disablement
Section 2(1(h)- workman- schedule II
B.M Habeebulla v P. Swamy- term dependant does not include all heirs and only
those who by some extend depend upon him-- Kinship coupled with dependency is
the sole crietrion
General Manager G.I.P Railway v shankar- (partial disablemet)worker lost eye and
two teeth, declared unfit for job, offered another job at railway, turned down filed
suit for permament partial disablement, rejected claim, only temporary, since only
unfit for one particular job
Sukhai v hukam chand jute mills- no physical disabiloty necessaery, only capacity to
earn should be diminished with appropriate proof of it for temporary partial
disablement
Section 3(1)d- employers liability in cases of personal injury- must have sustained
personal injury by accident in course of employment which lead to disablemet for
more than 3 days hpwever not liable when employee did drugs, wilful disobidence of
safety measures and removal of any safety guard which he knew was for safety.
Section 4- amount of compensation- 50% multiplied by relevant factor in case of
death, 60% in total disablement and in partial disablement of injuries in schedule
and half monthly payment in case of partial disablement upto 25% of montly salary
(refer page 225)
Section 4A- provisional payments to be made to comissioner when employer doesn’t
accveot liability. If fail to pay payments then at 12% rates of interest and if no valid
reaosn for delauy then fine upto 50% of amount as penalty
Indian News chorinicle Ltd case- heated meeting room to cooling plant room,
temprature shift casused pneumonia, lead to death, held employer liable under
section 3(1)d since physcial injury only is not necessary mental or psychological
welfare also counts
Saurastra salt manufacturing co v bai vala raju (imp) - , a boat carrying temporary
workers employed by Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. capsized while crossing a
creek from point B to point A near Porbandar, resulting in fatalities. The workers
were returning home after their day's work. The primary legal question was whether
the accident occurred "in the course of employment," thereby obligating the
employer to provide compensation under the act. Held that employment doesnot
commence until he has reached the place of empllyement and ends when he leaves
the place, the jounrey to and from place of employment excluded. However doctrine
of notional employment active when it can be proved that employee was there due
to stipulations in employment contract. Can include ccidents in public space if
therwe was no other means of conveyance and employer provided some. There
should be an obligation on employer to provide trasnport and reciprocal obligation
on employee to accept. Howveer since employer had no control over this ferry
means of transport held that not fault of emplyer.
Bhurangya coal ltd v sahebjan mian- conditions for employers to avoid liability--
cannot be avoided in any case in case of death
1. Rule or order disobeyed which was there for safety of workman and was in force
at the time of accident
2. Order was clear and showcased the purpose of safrty
3. Terms of such rule or order were brought to notice of employee
4. Disobyenace was wilful and deliberate and not just mere negligence
5. Accident was directly attributablee to the aforesaid disobidience.
Section 8 distribution
Section 12- Employer‟s Liability when Contract or is engaged- where employer does
his work through contractors then the liability to pay compensation lies upon the
principal if:
1. Prinicpal must have contracted such worker in the course of his business
2. Such work must ordinarily form part of principals trade or trade
3. Workman must have been injured thereto
4. Accident must have occred on premises
5. Workman can claim compensation from contravtor and employer both
6. Principal to be indemnified by contractor.
Workmen of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (1995), where the Supreme
Court widened “workman’s” scope for provident fund purposes, indirectly nudging
unorganised workers’ clamour for inclusion. A proactive jurisprudence could enforce
UWSSA’s mandate, compelling States to notify and operationalize schemes they
have hitherto delayed. Equally, tribunals and consumer forums could be empowered
to adjudicate unorganised workers’ grievances against insurance and pension
administrators more effectively than the existing labour courts, which often prove
inaccessible.