SANJIT ROY versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 271 · Decided: 20-01-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Case Allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

i \ .. 
• 
• 
-
271 
A 
SANJIT ROY 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
B 
January 20, 1983 
[P.N. BHAGWATI AND R.S. PATHAK, JJ] 
Rajasthan Famine Relief Works Employtes (Exemption from Labour Laws) 
Act, 1964, Section 3, Constitutional validity of-Constitution of India, Articles 14 
C 
and 23 and the Minimum Wages A.ct, 1968-"minimum wage" What is? explained. 
The respondent State in the Public Works Department has engaged a largo 
number of workers for the construction of Madanganj Harmara Road, close to 
Tilooia village with a view to providing relief to persons affected by drought 
and scarcity conditions. The workers employed· in this construction work arc 
divided into gangs of 20 persons or 
multiple thereof and for each gang one 
mustef roll is maintained. The work done by each gang is measured every 
fortnight and payment is made by the Public Works Department to the Mate 
who is the leader of the gang according to the work turned out by such gang 
during each fortnight. The Public Works Department has fixed a certain norm 
of work to ,.be turned out by each gang before the workmen belonging to 
such gang :can claim the minimum wage of Rs. 7 per day with the result 
that ir any particular gang turns out work according to the norm fixed by 
the 
Public Works Department, the Mate would be paid such amount 
as would be on distribution give a wage of Rs. 7 per day to the workmen 
constituting such gang, but if less work is turned out by such gang, payment to 
·be made to the mate of such gang would be proportionately reduced and in that 
event, the wage earned by each member of such gang would fall short of the 
minim_um wage of Rs. 7 per day. Further, this system of proportionate distribu· 
tion of the wages adopted without any visible principle or norm enabled'& 
workman who has put in less work to get more payment than the person who 
has really put in more work. Hence the public interest writ petition filed by the 
Director of the Social Work and Research Centre, co.mplaining violation of the 
provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Articles 14 and 23 of the Constitu-
tion, and the vires of section 3 of the Rajasthan Famine Relief Wo.rks Employees 
(Exemption from Labour Laws) Act, 1964. 
Allowing the Petition, the Coun 
D 
B 
F 
G 
HELD: 1. Where a person provides labour or service to another for 
remuneration which is less than the minimum wage, the labour or service 
provided by him clearly falls within the meanin$ of the words 'forced labour' 
and attract,s the condemnation of Article 23. Every person who provides labour 
H 
or service fo another is entitled at the least to the minimum wage and if anything 
less than tqe minimum w•$• is pJ1id to hi!ll, he can complain of violation of hi~ 
I 
' 
272 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1983] 2 s.c.R. 
A 
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. (280 D-F] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
B 
2: 1, The constitutional validity of the Exemption Act in so far as it 
excludes the applicability of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 providing that 
minimum wage may not be paid to a workman employed in any famine relief 
work, C<lnnot be sustained in the face of Article 23. Article 23 mandates 
that no person shall be required o:r permitted to provide labour or service to 
another on payment of anything less than the minimum wage. Whenever any 
Jabour or service is taken by the State from any person, whether he be affected 
by drought and scarcity conditions or not, the State must pay, at the least, 
minimum wage to such person on pa.in of violation of Article 23, 
(280 F-G, 282 B-C] 
2: 2. When the State undertakes famine relief work, it is no doubt true, 
that it does so in order to provide relief to persons affected by drought and 
scarcity C<?Oditioos but, none·the-less it is work which enures for the benefit of 
the State representing the society and if labollr or service is provided by the 
affected persons for carrying out such work, the State cannot pay anything less 
than the minimum wages to the affected persons. It is not as if dole or bounty 
is given by the State to the affected persons in order to J)rovide relief to them 
against drought and scarcity condilions nor is the work to be carried out by 
the affected persons worthless or useless to the society so that under the guise of 
providing work what the State in effect and substance seeks to do is to give dole or 
bounty to the affected
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.