Dr Singh, don't MNREGS workers deserve minimum wages?

3

Tweet

Minimum Wage. Fair Wage. Living Wage

"Minimum wage" is different from "fair wage".

"Minimum wage" and "Fair wage" are different from "Living wage".

Since you and I may differ on definitions, the 1967 SC judgment in the Kamani Metals and Alloys v Their Workmen could be a step towards clarity. In the Kamani Metals and Alloys v Their Workmen, the SC said, "It (Minimum Wage) sets the lowest limit below which wages cannot be allowed to sink in all humanity" and must be paid under all circumstances. Whereas, a "fair" wage must be sufficiently high to provide for food, shelter, clothing, medical care and education. A "living" wage, it said, provides for comfort and ability to tide over old age and bad times.

In other words, a minimum wage may not be enough for shelter, or clothing or medical care or education. So are workers in UPA's show piece legislation, the MNREGS, entitled to minimum wages? The Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, does not think so. And he's shown amazing will power to ensure that MNREGS wages remain de-linked from the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act.

As recently as 23.09.2011, the Karnataka High Court delivered a judgment which said that the Centre cannot fix a wage for MNREGS workers which is less than the minimum wage fixed by Karnataka. Quashing the Central notification of 01.01.09, the Karnataka High Court ruled, "It is declared that the power exercisable by the Central government under section 6 (1) of the MNREG Act, 2005 to notify wage rate be in such a manner that the wage rate notified shall not be less than the minimum wage fixed by the state government under section 3 of the minimum wages act, 1948 for agricultural labour." Effectively, it meant that MNREGS workers cannot be denied minimum wages.

The Karnataka High Court reiterated and reinforced the principles embodied in two landmark judgments in the eighties. In the historic People's Union for Democratic Rights Vs Union of India (1982), the SC held that work or service for less than minimum wages amounts to forced labour. Therefore, when the Union of India employs people for less than minimum wages, it violates Article 23 of the Constitution which prohibits forced labour. In 1983, in the Sanjit Roy v/s State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court upheld the rights of those employed in famine relief work to minimum wages, saying that "every person who provides labour or service to another is entitled at the least to the minimum wage and if anything less than the minimum wage is paid to him, he can complain of the violation of his fundamental right under article 23 ..."

Not to pay minimum wages to the poorest of the poor when the Union of India is the employer would be embarrassing. To lose the battle in the High Court of Karnataka, and still challenge the judgment would be doubly embarrassing. It means UPA does not want to pay minimum wages to workers in its own flagship MNREGS programme. The very MNREGS the Congress party loves to flaunt, hard sell and claim ownership of.

Yet, the UPA did exactly that. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is the force behind the government's decision to file the Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court asking for the Karnataka High Court order to be set aside. Perhaps he has gone by the opinion of the Law ministry and is deterred by the financial implications. But can lack of resources, even if it is true, legitimise non-payment of minimum wages?

Dr Manmohan Singh has decided to ignore the opinion of the Additional Solicitor General Ms Indira Jaisingh who said, "Capacity to pay is not relevant while fixing minimum wages... it is irrelevant whether such employment is relief, under NREGS, casual work, or contract work... the non-obstante clause in subsection (1) of section (6) by itself will not enable the Central Government to fix a wage at a rate lower than what is provided for in the Minimum Wages Act. The payment of wage below minimum wage would amount to forced labour."

Dr Manmohan Singh has decided to ignore the opinion of the Attorney General of India, Goolam E Vahanwati who said, "The notification of a wage rate lower than minimum wages might be permissible on a plain reading of the provisions of the Act, but there are serious doubts if such a provision is constitutional." The Attorney General also questioned whether the payment of a wage rate lower than minimum wage would defeat the social and public interest underlying the Act.

Dr Manmohan Singh also chose to ignore Congress president Sonia Gandhi, who in her capacity as Chairperson, National Advisory Council, had written to him on Nov 11, 2010, recommending that MNREGS workers must be paid minimum wages as notified in the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

Dr Manmohan Singh chose to ignore the opinion of Rural Development minister who wrote to him on 20th December 2011, "I have all along held the view that a SLP should not be filed. I had reiterated my position on not filing an SLP in a note to the principle secretary to the Prime Minister on Dec 12, 2011. I am also of the opinion that somehow the 'atmospherics' associated with the filing of a SLP will go against us."

Dr Manmohan Singh chose to ignore the opinion of the Ministry of Labour and Employment, which said, "It was also emphasized that section 6(1) of the MNREGA, may not stand legal scrutiny". The ministry of labour and employment also said that MNREGS workers should be paid minimum wages fixed by their respective states.

Dr Manmohan Singh chose to ignore the 3rd July 2009 order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that suspended operation of section 6 (1) of MGNREGA that fixed MNREGS wages at rates that could be lower than the Minimum Wages Act.

Dr Manmohan Singh chose to ignore the UPA's agenda of inclusive growth and statistics which reveal that 42 per cent of Indian children are malnourished. How are these challenges going to be met if people at the bottom of the ladder do not get minimum wages, not even for 100 days a year?

Dr Manmohan Singh has persevered hard to win a battle that denies MNREGS workers a minimum wage. Astonishing but that is the way it is.