Supreme Court of India
Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan
Whether the State could pay workers on famine relief works less than the minimum wage, under a State Act that excluded the Minimum Wages Act from those works.
Decided under an earlier law
The Court decided this case on the Constitution, on wages below the minimum wage notified under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948: Article 23 (forced labour) in the opinion of Bhagwati J., and Article 14 (equality) in that of Pathak J. Section 69 of the Code on Wages, 2019 repeals the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Court's words are shown below, with the Code provision this library lists the case on. This library does not say whether the decision holds good under the Code.
What the Court decided
Each point is this library's summary, followed by the Court's own words, checked word for word against the Supreme Court's typed copy of the judgment (JUDIS file 9840). The pinpoint gives the page of the Supreme Court Reports and the margin letter (A to H) printed beside the line where the words begin. The judges wrote separate opinions, so each point names the opinion its words come from.
Everyone who provides labour or service to another is entitled at least to the minimum wage; a person paid less can complain of a breach of Article 23 and ask the court to direct payment of the minimum wage.
From the opinion of P.N. Bhagwati
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 violation of his fundamental right under Article 23 and ask the court to direct payment of the minimum wage to him so that the breach of Article 23 may be abated.
[1983] 2 S.C.R. 271, at 280 D · open the report at p. 280 The State Act, so far as it excluded the Minimum Wages Act from famine relief work and allowed less than the minimum wage to be paid there, was invalid.
From the opinion of P.N. Bhagwati
the Exemption Act in so far as it excludes the applicability of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 to workmen employed on famine relief work and permits payment of less than the minimum wage to such workmen, must be held to be invalid as offending the provisions of Article 23.
[1983] 2 S.C.R. 271, at 282 B · open the report at p. 282 A minimum wage fixed by the day must be paid for a day's work; an employer may set a norm of work, but a worker who falls short of it cannot be paid less than the minimum wage.
From the opinion of P.N. Bhagwati
Here the minimum wage is fixed at Rs. 7 per day and that is the minimum wage which must be paid by the employer to the workman so long as the workman works throughout the working hours of the day for which he can lawfully be required to work.
[1983] 2 S.C.R. 271, at 283 C · open the report at p. 283 if the workman does not turn out work in conformity with such norm, the employer cannot pay him anything less than the minimum wage.
[1983] 2 S.C.R. 271, at 283 D · open the report at p. 283 Pathak J. agreed with the order but rested it on Article 14: workers drawn from a drought-affected area have the same rights as workers from elsewhere.
From the opinion of R.S. Pathak
But while he has found substance in the contention that the case is one of "forced labour" within the meaning of Art. 23 of the Constitution, I prefer to rest my decision on the ground that there is a breach of Art. 14 of the Constitution.
[1983] 2 S.C.R. 271, at 284 G · open the report at p. 284 The rights of all the workers will be the same, whether they are drawn from an area affected by drought and scarcity conditions or come from elsewhere.
[1983] 2 S.C.R. 271, at 285 F · open the report at p. 285
The Code
This library lists the case on: Code on Wages, section 5 (Payment of minimum rate of wages In force).