1.
NAME ROLL NUMBER
Harshita Saloni 396
Kanika Kamath 62
Prachi Khemka 516
Satyam Nayar 595
Garima Singh 476
Tushar Kumar 88

2.
Untimely
payment
Unauthorize
d Penalty/
fines
Non uniformity

3.
Bill
passed
1936
Came into
force
28th March
1937

4.
 First date of payment of wages
 Secondly deduction from wages
whether as fine or otherwise

5.
 Every factories
 Railway administration
 Any industrial or other establishment
 Any other establishment by giving notification of at least
3months in official gazette

6.
Organization Responsible person
Factories manager
Railway administration Person appointed
industrial and other establishment Supervision and control payment of wage
contractor Person appointed by contractor
Other cases Person designated for this purpose

7.
 Every person responsible for the payment of wages
under section 3 shall fix period referred to as wage-
period in respect of which such wages shall be
payable
MAX. WAGE
PERIOD
1 MONTH

8.
 Wages to be paid in
current coins or
currency notes
 After obtaining the
authorization, either by
cheque or by crediting
the wages in employee's
bank account.After
obtaining the
authorization, either by
currency notes

9.

Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, government
of Tamil Nadu communicated to the Government of India his
apprehensions about the payment of wages through banks. The
reasons advanced were that the workers would have to
commute long distances to get their wages from banks losing
one day's wages and that the banks would adjust previous
arrears from their dues.

State Employment Guarantee Council also directed the
government of Tamil Nadu to continue the system of payment of
wages in cash in the state.

10.
The practice of making payments to the workers
through bank was fraught with the risk of
malpractices particularly since the wage
disbursement agency and the Scheme implementing
agency were the same.
. In the Village Payment Committees, formed for the
purpose of wage disbursement, majority of the
members were persons who were responsible for
implementing the Scheme, viz. President, Vice-
President and Ward Member of Village Panchayats.
Government of Tamil Nadu replied that from 2012-13 it had
decided to dispense with the existing practice of disbursing
wages to the workers through bank to curtail the scope of
malpractices in wage payments and to separate the wage
disbursement agency from the implementing agency. The
wages were now being paid in CASH!!!

11.
It would contribute to a proper understanding of the case before us if it is mentioned
at the outset that the mills carried on the business of crushing sugar-cane and
manufacture of sugar. For the purposes of the working of the mills, a year is divided
into two parts, that is, working season and off season. Working season are the
months during which operations in the sugar mills are carried on and crushing of
sugar cane and manufacture of sugar take place. Off season is the period during
which the actual process of manufacture of sugar or crushing of sugar-cane does
not take place. During this period only skeleton staff is maintained in order to keep
the premises and machinery installed in the factory clean. Most of the workers are
not on duty during the off season.

12.
 The workers of Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. approached the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act,
under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 on the allegation that they were entitled to certain
amount of money as retaining allowance which had not been paid to them by the mills. By means of the order
dated 15th June,1959; the Authority awarded certain sums to each one of the 28 appellants.
 The mills then filed writ petition in the Allahabad High Court for the quashing of the order of the Authority. The
writ petition was heard and the order passed by the Authority was subsequently quashed.
 Dissatisfied with the judgment of the court, the workers filed the instant special appeal.
 Mr. S. N. Misra became the counsel for the appellants, and Mr. S. N. Kackker became the counsel for the
mills. No one appeared on behalf of the Authority.

13.
Mr. S. N. Misra contended that there was an error in having quashed the order passed by the Authority
and that the view taken by the court that the amounts sought to be recovered were not "wages" as
defined in Section 2(vi) of the Act was incorrect.
The case of the appellants was that in addition to the remuneration that they were getting during the
working season, they were entitled to a certain amount of money as retaining allowance. They rest
their claim on the following statement issued by the labour department-
“And whereas, in the opinion of the State Government it is necessary to enforce the recommendations
of the said Committee for securing the public convenience and maintenance of public order and
supplies and services essential to the life of the community and for maintaining employment.”

14.
The court was of the opinion that the retaining allowance paid to
the workers during the off season did not amount to wages as
defined by Section 2(vi) of the Act. That provision reads :--
As per Section 2(vi) of the Payment of Wages Act, “ ‘wages’
means all remuneration, capable of being expressed in terms of
money which would, if the terms of the contract of employment,
express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable, whether
conditionally upon the regular attendance, good work or conduct
or other behaviour of the person employed, or otherwise, to a
person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in
such employment, and includes any bonus or other additional
remuneration of the nature aforesaid which would be so payable
and any sum payable to such person by reason of the termination
of his employment but does not include-

15.
(a) any bonus (whether under a scheme of profit sharing or
otherwise) which does not form part of the remuneration payable
under the terms of employment or which is not payable under any
award or settlement between the parties or order of a Court;
(b)the value of any house-accommodation, supply of light, water,
medical attendance, or other amenity, or of any service excluded by
general or special order of the State Government;
(c) any contribution paid by the employer to any pension, fund or
provident fund;
(d) any travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession;
(e) any sum paid to the person employed to defray special expenses
entailed on him by the nature of his employment; or
(f) any gratuity payable on discharge.”
It is clear from the definition that before any amount can be 'wages', it
must be ‘remuneration’. Remuneration ordinarily means any
consideration, which a person receives for giving his services.
Remuneration also means a quid pro quo.

16.
Mr. Misra submitted that it had never been the case of the mills’ having no amount as
retaining allowance due to the appellants, but only that the amount was not liable to be
recovered under the provisions of the Act.
It is true that in the writ petition filed by the mills, it had not been stated that no amount as
retaining allowance was due from them to the appellants. It does also appear that the party
proceeded on the assumption that the amount, though due, was not recoverable under the
machinery provided by the Act.
It was held by a Division Bench of that Court that retaining allowance was not 'Wages'
within the meaning of Section 2(vi) of the Payment of Wages Act and therefore, the
Payment of Wages Authority had no jurisdiction to order its payment.
In view of what we have stated above this special appeal was dismissed.

17.
There cannot be any doubt that remuneration is correlated to service and is a return in terms of money or goods for
services rendered by one party to another. We have to see whether retaining allowance has an element of quid pro
quo or is a return in terms of money or goods for services rendered.
Admittedly during the off season no services are rendered by these workmen to the mills. During this period the
workmen are free to seek service of others or to keep themselves employed in any undertaking or business of their
own. It is, therefore, clear that the retaining allowance cannot be co-related to the services rendered to the mills.
Therefore, it is nothing, but a compensation paid to the workmen for their denying themselves the liberty to seek
employment elsewhere or to work for themselves, during the coming working season in the mills.
Consequently it is not possible to hold that the retaining allowance partakes of the nature of pay or fees or
remuneration. Once it is not remuneration, it cannot be wages within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, the retaining
allowance is not comprehended in the expression 'wages' as defined by Section 2(vi) of the Act and for that reason
the Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the claims filed by the workers before it and to adjudicate upon the
same. The court was, therefore, correct in holding that the order passed by the Authority was without jurisdiction and
therefore, liable to be quashed.

18.
DEFINITION-SEC 7 –Provides that wages of an employed person shall be
paid to him without deductions of any kind except those authorized by
or under the act .
But some deductions which are allowed under the act .
One of those is deduction for absence of duty

19.
DEDUCTION May be on account of the employed person from the
place or places where by the terms of the employment he is
required to work.
1. Absence may be for the whole or any part of the period during
which he is required to work
2. CONDITION A. Absence must be voluntary.
3. B.IT Should be without permission of the employer.
Cases:
MODI INDUSTRIES V/S STATE OF
U.P.
BANK OF INDIA V/S TS

20.
 Deduction –when absent where required to be
present
 DEEMED TO BE ABSENT –when although present at the
work place he refuses to work in pursuance of strike
or for any other cause
 Deduction for 8 days wages –if 10 or more employed
person acting in concert absent themselves without
due notice and without reasonable cause.
 "The normal rule of "no work no pay" is not applicable
to cases where the employee although he is willing
to work is kept away from work by the authorities for
no fault of his. This is not a case where the employee
remains away from work for his own reasons,
although the work is offered to him.“

21.
 19;12;90 DISPUTE BTW MANAGEMENT AND TRADE UNIOUN
 21;12;90 WORKMEN CAME TO PREMISES BUT DID NOT
WORK RESULTING STOPPAGE
 WORKMEN SAID THEY COULDNOT WORK DUE TO SUSPENSN
OF 30 TECHNICAL WORKERS SO NOT POSSIBLE TO OPERATE
MACHINES WITTHOUT THEM
 27 12 90 AGREEMENT BTW THEM THAT EXCEPT THE
WORKMAN SUSPENDED EVERY1 WILL GO AND DISCHARGE
THEIR DUTIES
 BUT IN SPITE OF THIS WORK CANNOT BE CARRIED ON
 ACC TO MGT ;NON COOPERATION BY WORKERS “BY TRADE
UNIOUNS;MGT DIDN’T PERMIT TO WORK

22.
 Section 15 .-AUTHORITIES -DICUSSIONS BY DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE AND LABOUR DEPARTMENTON 8 ;2;91
DISCUSSIONS ND BOTH WERE PRESENT TADE UNIOUN
PEOPLE SAID IT CULDNT BE CARRIED OUT DUE TO
SUSPENDED TECHNICAL ORKER EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE
READY TO WORK
 DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SAID TO REINSTATE THOSE WORKERS
WHO ARE SUSPENDED AGAINST WHO NO SERIOUS CHARGES
BUT MGT SAID THAT FOR THIS THEY NEED TO CONSULT
HIGHER OFFICIA;L
 11;1 91 –NEXT DATE BUT NO RESPONSE FRM MGT AND NO
WORK IN CO.TILL 3-3 91 AND PRODUCTION STARTED BY 4-
3-91
 NO WAGES PAID BY MGT 21-12 90 TO 3;3;91
 JUDGEMENT –If the workman did not work although the
work was offered to them he is not entitled to wages.

23.
 BANK OF INDIA V.S TS.KELEWAALA
 IN THIS THE WORKMAN IN SPITE OF THE NOTICE BY THE
EMPLOYER HAS GONE ON STRIKE SO SUPREME COURT GAVE
THE RIGHT TO EMPLOYER TO DEDUCT THE WAGES ON THE
DAY THEY HAVE GONE ON STRIKE
 IN THIS EMPLOYER WAS WILLING TO OFFERS THE WORK
BUT THEY HAD GONE ON STRIKE SAME JUDGEMENT IN THE
CASE OF UNION OF INDIA K JANKIRAM.BY SUPREME COURT

24.
Deduction such as fine, deduction for
amenities and services supplied by the
employer, advances paid, over payment of
wages, loan

25.
1. The respondents are drivers employed to ply buses owned by
the State of Madras who run the State Transport Service in the
City of Madras. The State claimed to deduct from wages due to
them certain amounts for damages to the buses when they
were being driven by them respectively. The drivers protested
that the State was not entitled to make the deductions and
they applied to the Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Madras, for a decision that the deductions were
not validly made.
2. The State purported to make the deductions under Section
7(2)(c) of the Payment of Wages Act. Under that provision
deduction! from the wages of an employed person can be
made for damage to or loss of goods expressly entrusted to
the employed person for custody or for loss of money for
which he is required to account, where such damage or loss is
directly attributable to his neglect or default.

26.
3. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras,
held that the deductions were improperly made because it had
not been established that the buses which the employed
persons operated were expressly entrusted to them for custody.
In this view he did not go into the question whether the
damage or loan was directly attributable to the neglect or
default of the employed persons, He directed the State to pay
the drivers the amounts deducted.
4. the short question to be decided is whether the buses were "
expressly entrusted to the employed persons for custody." The
arguments centred round two points, namely:
 (1) whether the goods, that is, the buses, were expressly
entrusted, and (2) whether the buses were entrusted to the
drivers for custody.

27.
 The above construction of Section 7(2)(c) of the Act
(Payment of Wages Act) might, It was suggested,
lead to considerable hardship to the workers. In
certain cases it might, but to restrict the
application of the provision only to such employees
as storekeepers, etc., might equally lead to
considerable hardship to the employers. But for a
provision like this, the employed persons might deal
with the goods given to their care completely
indifferent to their safety and preservation. With
respect to the learned Judge, Subba Rao, J.,
 There will be no order as to costs in this appeal.

28.
Insider trading is the buying ,
selling or dealing in securities of
a listed company by any person
who has the knowledge of
material inside information
which is not available to general
public

29.
 CORPORATE OFFICERS
 EMPLOYEES OF LAW ,BANKING ,BROKERAGE AND
PRINTING FIRMS
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

30.
Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition
of Insider
Trading)Regulation ,1992,does not directly
definethe term insider
trading
But it defines the terms-
 Insider” or who is an “insider
 Who is a “connected person
 What is “price sensitive information?”

31.
 ANY PERSON WHO IS/WAS CONNECTED WITH
THE COMPANY OR DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN
CONNECTED AND WHO IS REASONABLY
EXPECTEDTO HAVE ACCESS /HAS RECEIVED
/TO PUBLISHED PRICE SENSITIVE
INFORMATION

32.
 ANY PERSONWHO IS THE DIRCTOR U/S
2(13)OF CO.ACT OR WHO IS DEEMED TO BE A
DIRECTOR U/S 307(10)OF CO.ACT OR OFFICER
OR EMPLOYEE OR HOLD A POSITION
INVOLVING PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP OR
BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WHETHER
TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT AND WHO MAY
REASONABLY EXPECTED TO HAVE ACCESS TO
UPS

33.
 ANY INFORMATION WHICH RELATES DIRECTLY
OR INDIRECTLY TO A COMPANY AND WHICH IF
PUBLISHED LIKELY TO MATERIALLY AFFECT
THE PRICE OF SECURITIES OF THE COMPANY.

34.
 USED TO MAKE PROFIT AT THE EXPENSE OF
OTHER INVESTOR
 LEADS TO LOSS OF CONDIDENTS OF INVESTOR
IN STOCK MARKET
 THE PROCESS CORRUPTS ‘THE LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD’
 IT IS EASIER TO IDENTIFY THE BENEFICIARIES
OF INSIDER TRADING DEALING .BUT THE
EXTENT OF LOSSES OCCURRED IS IMPOSSIBLE
TO CALCULATE

35.
 The employer can make deduction for the
payment to co-operative societies to a scheme
of insurance maintained by Indian post office.
 Such deduction shall be subject to such
conditions as the appropriate government may
impose.

36.
 Petitioner 1 society is a co-operative society registered
under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925,
respondent 1 was a member of petitioner 1 society.
 One Natwarlal Mohanlal, another member of the society,
applied in February 1957 for a loan from the society. Under
the said bylaws, the society would advance such a loan on
the personal security of a member if two other members
were to stand as sureties for him.
 respondent 1 and the said Ahmed executed a bond
of suretyship as contemplated by S. 24A of the Co-
operative Societies Act, 1925.
 Before the aforesaid loan of Rs. 600 was repaid in
full, the said Natwarlal and the said Ahmed Dawood
left the service of petitioner 2 mills.

37.
Judgement
For the reasons aforesaid, the decision of the
competent Authority under the Payment of Wages
Act was correct and, consequently, the petition
must fail. The petition is rejected and the rule is
discharged. The petitioners will pay to respondent
1 the costs of this petition

38.
 Deductions from the wages of an employed
person shall be made only in accordance with
the provisions of this Act, and may be of the
following kinds only,
 deductions made, with the written
authorisation of the employed person, for
payment of the fees payable by him for the
membership of any trade union registered
under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (16 of
1926)."

39.
 The petitioners 1 and 2 are registered Trade
Unions and petitioners 3 to 6 are members of
one of the Union.
 The National Textile Corporation owned seven
national Textile Mills in Tamil Nadu, i.e, five in
Coimbatore District and one each in Sivagangai
and Ramnad Districts.
 According to the petitioners, several workers
working in respondents 2 to 5 NTC Unions in
Tamil Nadu are members of the first and second
petitioner Trade Unions.

40.
 On 27.12.2010 the Management of NTC Units
addressed letters to the aforesaid four Unions
recognised by the management to furnish the list of
their members to enable the management to deduct
subscription from their wages and remit to the
Unions. The petitioners 1 and 2 were not issued with
any such communication as they failed to get
recognition.
 However, the management did not deduct any such
subscription and consequently on 28.1.2011
petitioner submitted a representation before the first
respondent for which the first respondent replied on
27.1.2011 stating that the respondents will deduct
subscription only for the Trade Unions which had
secured 10% of the total votes polled, which are
granted recognition.

41.
Judgement;
the registration of Trade Union is not
cancelled, the Unions will enjoy certain
rights, of course with liabilities, in terms of
Section 15 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926.
Section 7(2)(kkk) of the Payment of Wages
Act, 1936 deals with the deduction of
subscriptions from the willing members and
the employer is bound to deduct and remit
the same into the account of the Trade Union

42.
Every employer should maintain such registers and records giving
such particulars of persons employed by him, the work performed
by them, the wages paid to them, the deductions made from their
wages, the receipts given by them and such other particulars and in
such form as may be prescribed.
Every register and record required to be maintained and preserved
for a period of three years after the date of the last entry made
therein. It means for every transaction made within employer and
employee should have 3 years of record.

43.
 INSPECTORS
Inspectors. [Sec 14]
The state government may appoint an inspector for purpose of this act.
Every Inspector shall be deemed to be a public servant within the
meaning of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Sec 14(5)]. The inspector of this
act is having powers mentioned below
Inspector can make enquiry and examination whether the employers are
properly obeying the rules mentioned under this act.
 Inspector with such assistance, if any, as he thinks fit, enter, inspect and
search any premises of any railway, factory or industrial or other
establishment at any reasonable time for the purpose of carrying out the
objects of this Act.
 Inspector can supervise the payment of wages to persons employed upon
any railway or in any factory or industrial or other establishment.
 Seize or take copies of such registers or documents or portions thereof as
he may consider relevant in respect of an offence under this Act which he
has reason to believe has been committed by an employer.

44.

To hear and decide all claims arising out of deductions from the wages, or delay in
payment of the wages, of persons employed or paid, including all matters, incidental to such claims, there
will be a officer mentioned below appointed by the appropriate government.
(a) any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation; or
(b) any officer of the Central Government exercising functions as –
(i) Regional Labour Commissioner; or
(ii) Assistant Labour Commissioner with at least two years' experience; or
(c) any officer of the State Government not below the rank of Assistant Labour Commissioner with at least
two years' experience; or
(d) a presiding officer of any Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, constituted under the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) or under any corresponding law relating to the investigation and settlement of
industrial disputes in force in the State; or
(e) any other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or a Judicial Magistrate, as the authority
to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of deductions from the wages, or delay in
payment of the wages, of persons employed or paid in that area, including all matters incidental to such
claims:

45.
 If any employer does opposite to the provisions of this act, any unreasonable deduction has
been made from the wages of an employed person, or any payment of wages has been
delayed, in such case any lawyer or any Inspector under this Act or official of a registered
trade union authorized to write an application to the authority appointed by government
for direction of payment of wages according to this act. Every such application shall be
presented within 12 months from the date on which the deduction from the wages was
made or from the date on which the payment of the wages was due to be made. Time of
making an application can be accepted if there is reasonable cause.

46.
Case: In that case, an application for compensation was filed by a
workman 10 years after the accident had taken place. During
that period of 10 years he continued in the same job under the
same employer and in the same pay as before the accident.
Judgement
Section 15
Payment of Wages Act
Section 15
Solution

47.
 SINGLE APPLICATION IN RESPECT OF CLAIMS
FROM UNPAID GROUP. [Section 16]
There is no necessity of many applications if
there are many employees whose wages has
not been paid. Such all employees can make
one application to the authority for payment
of wages according to this act.

48.
 APPEAL. [Section 17]
In the following situation the parties who ever
dissatisfied can appeal to the district court
If the application dismissed by above authorities
 Employer imposed with compensation exceeding
300/- rupees by the authorities.
 If the amount exceeding 25/- rupees withheld by
the employer to single unpaid employee. 50/- in
case of many unpaid employees

49.
 (1) Whoever being responsible for the payment of
wages to an employed person contravenes any of the
provisions of any of following sections,
namely, [Section 5 except sub-section (4) thereof,
Section 7, Section 8 except sub-section (8) thereof,
Section 9, Section 10 except subsection (2) thereof,
and Sections 11 to 13], both inclusive, shall be
punishable with fine [which shall not be less than two
hundred rupees but which may extend to one
thousand rupees].
 (2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of Section
4, [sub-section (4) of Section 5, Section 6, sub-
section (8) of Section 8, sub-section (2) of Section 10]
or Section 25 shall be punishable with fine which may
extend to [five hundred rupees].

50.
 (3) Whoever being required under this Act to maintain
any records or registers or to furnish any information or
return—
 (a) fails to maintain such register or record; or
 (b) wilfully refuses or without lawful excuse neglects to
furnish such information or return; or
 (c) wilfully furnishes or causes to be furnished any
information or return which he knows to be false; or
 (d) refuses to answer or wilfully gives a false answer to
any question necessary for obtaining any information
required to be furnished under this Act; shall, for each
such offence, be punishable with fine ' [which shall not
be less than two hundred rupees but which may extend
to one thousand rupees].

51.
 (4) Whoever—
 (a) wilfully obstructs an Inspector in the discharge of his
duties under this Act; or
 (b) refuses or wilfully neglects to afford an Inspector any
reasonable facility for making any entry, inspection,
examination, supervision, or inquiry authorised by or under
this Act in relation to any railway, factory or ^industrial or
other establishment]; or
 (c) wilfully refuses to produce on the demand of an
Inspector any register or other document kept in pursuance
of this Act; or
 (d) prevents or attempts to prevent or does anything which
he has any reason to believe is likely to prevent any person
from appearing before or being examined by an Inspector
acting in pursuance of his duties under this Act,
 shall be punishable with fine [which shall not be less than
two hundred rupees but which may extend to one thousand
rupees].

52.
 (5) If any person who has been convicted of any offence
punishable under this Act is agains guilty of an offence
involving contravention of the same provision, he shall be
punishable on a subsequent conviction with imprisonment for
a term 4[which shall not be less than one month but which
may extend to six months and with fine which shall not be
less than five hundred rupees but which may extend to three
thousand rupees]:
 Provided that for the purpose of this sub-section, no
cognizance shall be taken of any conviction made more than
two years before the date on which the commission of the
offence which is being punished came to the knowledge of
the Inspector.
 (6) If any person fails or wilfully neglects to pay the wages
of any employed person by the date fixed by the authority in
this behalf, he shall, without prejudice to any other action
that may be taken against him, be punishable with an
additional fine which may extend to 5[one hundred rupees]
for each day for which such failure or neglect continues.]

53.
MINIMUM WAGES
ACT,1948

54.
Payment of Wages Act
 Applicability
1) Every Person
employed in any
Factory and a person
employed in an
Industrial or other
Establishment and to
persons employed
upon any railway or
through sub-
contractor in railway.
Minimum Wages Act
 Applicability
Any person who directly
or through another
person, where for
himself or for any other
Person employs one or
more employees in any
schedule Employment in
respect of which
minimum rates of wages
have been fixed under
this Act.

55.
Payment of Wages Act
 Eligibility
Every person who is
employed in any of
the above mentioned
establishments and
who is drawing less
than Rs.10000/- per
month.
Minimum Wages Act
 Eligibility
Any person who is
employed for hire or
reward to do any work
in a scheduled
Employment and
includes an outdoor
worker to whom any
articles or Materials are
given for either doing
some work either at
home or any other
Premises

56.
Payment of Wages Act
 Benefits: the Act prescribes
for
1) The regular and timely
payment of wages (on or
before 7th day or 10th day
after last day of the wages
period in respect of which
the wages are payable)
2) Preventing unauthorized
deductions being made
from wages and arbitrary
fines.
3) Wages exceeding
Rs.5000/- to be paid by
cheque. (Applicable for
Andhra Pradesh only)
Minimum Wages Act
 Benefits
The Act prescribes the
minimum rates of wages
payable to employees for
Different scheduled
employments for different
class of work and for
adults, Adolescents,
children and apprentices
depending upon different
localities
Penal Provision
Imprisonment up to 6
months and / or fine up to
Rs. 500 is imposable for
Contravention.

57.
 The petitioner(Sonu) was engaged by the
respondent (appellant in this appeal) as a
'Sweeper' in the MCD Primary School,
Karkardooma, Shahdara South.
 The school runs in two shifts. The petitioner
was employed in the girls primary school,
where he served from 23.8.1988 to 25.6.97
continuously.

58.
 The respondent-school (appellant herein) has
treated the petitioner as part time worker they
have been paying him a fixed amount of Rs.
560/- per month treating him as part time
employee with duty of 5 hours per day.
 It is alleged that the petitioner from the date of
his appointment has been entrusted with the
work of sweeping, cleaning and dusting like
regular sweepers working in the same
department and working hours. However, for the
last 9 years he has neither been regularized nor
paid the minimum of the pay scale of Group-D,
which is discriminatory and arbitrary

59.
 The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), it
is stated that the petitioner was appointed
as 'part time sweeper' on the death of his
mother, who was also a part time sweeper. It
is alleged that part time sweepers are
regularized in a phased manner as per
seniority and vacancy.
 The petitioner has alleged that the
respondent has to pay minimum wages under
the Minimum Wages Act for unskilled workers
to which category the petitioner belongs.

60.
 MCD denied Minimum Wages as per the
Minimum Wages Act. And did not regularize
Sonu for his 9 years of service thereby not
granting him minimum wage.

61.
 The payment was made to Sonu of the
amount by which the minimum wages
payable to him exceed the amount actually
paid, together with the payment of such
compensation AS PER Section 14,sub-
section(2).

62.
“India's labor regulations - among
the most restrictive and complex in
the world - have constrained the
growth of the formal manufacturing
sector where these laws have their
widest application.”
World Bank report in 2008
LABOUR CODE ON WAGES BILL, 2015
A BILL to consolidate and amend the law relating to wages and bonus and the
matters connected there with or incidental thereto.

63.
Relative regulations and rigidity in labor laws[35]
Practice required by law India China United States
Minimum wage (US$/month) ₹6000 (US$91) /month 182.5 1242.6
Standard work day 8 hours 8 hours 8 hours
Minimum rest while at work 30 minutes per 6-hour None None
Maximum overtime limit 200 hours per year 432 hours per year None
Premium pay for overtime 100% 50% 50%
Dismissal due to redundancy Yes, if approved by government
Yes, without approval of
government
Yes, without approval of
government
Government approval required
for 1 person dismissal
Yes No No
Government approval required
for 9 person dismissal
Yes No No
Government approval for
redundancy dismissal granted
Rarely[ Not applicable Not applicable
Dismissal priority rules regulated Yes Yes No
Severance pay for redundancy
dismissal
of employee with 1 year tenure
2.1 week salary 4.3-week salary None
Severance pay for redundancy
dismissal
of employee with 5-year tenure
10.7-week salary 21.7-week salary None

64.
 The Labour Code on Wages replaces four
existing laws – the Minimum Wages Act 1948,
the Payment of Wages Act 1936, the Payment
of Bonus Act 1965, and the Equal
Remuneration Act, 1976.

65.
States will fix minimum wage rates
Under the Minimum Wages Act 1948, both central
and state government can fix minimum wage rates
in various sectors, with 45 sectors in the central
sphere and 1,679 areas under states' jurisdiction.
 State governments would be free to set the
minimum wage rate higher than this basic wage,
but not lower than it. provided that while fixing
or revising such minimum wage the state
government shall take into consideration any
guidelines made by the Minimum Wages Advisory
Board constituted by the Central government.

66.
 Weakening of Equal Remuneration Act
The Bill proposes to replace the Equal
Remuneration Act, 1976 with a single provision
prohibiting discrimination on ground of sex “in
the matter of wages; under the same
employer, in respect of work of same or similar
nature”.

67.
 No more Inspectors, only facilitators
In a first, the Labour Code on Wages Bill
proposes to replace Labour Inspectors, often
portrayed as a burdensome remnant of the
Inspector Raj, with “Facilitators”. The Bill
proposes their role will be to “supply
information and advice to employers and
workers concerning the most effective means
of complying with the provisions of this
code”.

68.
 Restricting rights of trade unions
The proposed law does away with Section
23(2) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965
which permits trade unions to legally access
audited accounts and balance-sheets of
employers. This leaves workers with
no possibility of scrutinising the financial
claims of the employer, according to the
Working People's Charter.