LexSWARAJ ABHIYAN (VI) versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
398
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
SWARAJ ABHIYAN (VI)
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 857 of 2015)
MAY 18, 2018
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND N. V. RAMANA, JJ.]
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act,
2005:
ss. 3(1), 3(3), 3(4) and 14(6); Schedule I Paragraph 7,
Schedule II Paragraph 29 – Writ petition filed u/Art. 32 of
Constitution, highlighting deficiencies in implementation of the Act
– It was alleged that “approved labour budget” fixed by Central
Government violated essence of the Act; that there was unreasonable
reduction in the funds made available to the States and there was,
delay in payment of wages to the labourers – Held: Central
Government is statutorily empowered (by National Employment
Guarantee Fund Rules) to scrutinize and assess the funds to be
released – Therefore, fixation of “approved labour budget” is not
arbitrary – If there is unreasonable reduction of funds to States, it
is for the States to object to that – In absence of such objection by
any State, such plea cannot be raised in the petition – It is left to the
Central Government to find a solution in order to avoid delay in
release of funds to the States – In terms of ss. 3(3) and 3(4) and
Schedule II of the Act, worker is entitled to wages within a fortnight
failing which he is entitled to compensation – The burden of
compliance is on the State Government and Central Government –
The State and Central Governments are directed to prepare an urgent
time-bound programme to make payment of wages and compensation
to the workers – National Employment Guarantee Fund Rules, 2006
– r. 5.
The Court
HELD: 1.1 Rule 5 of The National Employment Guarantee
Fund Rules, 2006 provides, inter alia, for release of grants from
the National Employment Guarantee Fund (NEGF) to the State
Governments and Union Territory Administrations. Thus. the
Central Government is statutorily empowered to scrutinize and
[2018] 5 S.C.R. 398
398
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
399
assess the funds to be released to the State Governments and
Union Territory Administrations for the purposes of the Mahatma
Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. The
final assessment is made by the Empowered Committee in
consultation with the State Governments and Union Territory
Administrations. Therefore, it is not as if the ‘agreed to labour
budget’ or the ‘approved labour budget’ is fixed arbitrarily by
the Central Government. There is nothing objectionable in this,
more particularly since the process is backed by statutory
provisions. [Paras 18 and 19] [408-C-D, H; 409-A-B]
1.2 Meaningful discussions are necessary while approving
or finalizing the labour budget. The fact that so many States and
Union Territories have exceeded the expenditure postulated by
the ‘agreed to labour budget’ is an indication that the Scheme is
either well received by the unemployed or the Empowered
Committee is being a little tight-fisted. The release of funds is
for a good socio-economic cause and therefore expeditious and
sufficient availability of funds should be the objective. Under the
circumstances, it is not correct to say that the Central
Government cannot prepare an ‘agreed to labour budget’ or that
the process of preparing an ‘agreed to labour budget’ is
impermissible or that there is an informal cap on release of funds.
[Para 27] [411-D-F]
2.1 If there is some sort of a cap or an unreasonable
reduction in the funds made available to the State Governments,
it is really for the concerned State Government to object to the
cap and non-availability of funds. The Court has not been shown
any objection raised by any State to the effect that it has not
received adequate funds for implementation of the Scheme for
various activities. In the absence of any objection or demand
having been raised for funds by the State Governments (and denial
of funds by the Central Government), the petitioner cannot be
allowed to raise such a contention which ought really to be raised
by the affected State Government. [Para 24] [410-D-F]
3. Regarding delayed payments, according to the Central
Government, there is some laxity by the State Governments and
Union Territory Administrations in respect of obtaining another
mother sanction, when the Mother sanction based on the “agreed
SWARAJ ABHIYAN (VI) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
400
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
to labour budget” nears exhaustion or is exhausted. TExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.