The wage rate under MANREGA is not an ultra vires of Article 14 of COI

Case Covered:

R.Gandhi

Versus

The Union of India

Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Declaration, declaring Section 6 of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (Act 42 of 2005) as ultra vires Article 23, 14, and 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore, void ab-initio.

Facts of the case:

The challenge raised is to the effect that non-payment of minimum wages as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for brevity, “the 1948 Act”) to those who are engaged under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act Scheme (for brevity, “the MGNREGA Scheme”) is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in as much as persons engaged for performance of similar nature of work are getting the minimum wages in other Government Departments and, therefore, fixing a lower wage notified under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (for brevity, “the 2005 Act”) is ultra vires the Constitution of India.

The second ground raised is that paying wages less than minimum wages prescribed amounts to compelling the MGNREGA engagees to be treated as forced and bonded labor, which is violative of Article 23 of the Constitution of India.

Observations of the court:

It is in this background and based on the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court, referred supra, it is urged that the legislation even though is to lessen the distress of poverty, yet it has been designed to extend help to those who are facing unemployment and the Government cannot be allowed to take undue advantage of such a status so as to pay wages less than the minimum wages. It is urged that, in such a situation, the ratio of the decision cited supra is clearly attracted by the facts of the present case and hence, the relief prayed for should be granted.

Having considered the submissions raised, we find that the purpose of the 2005 Act is to extend a helping hand to the unemployed youth and is not to force unwilling labor on any person. The 2005 Act is clearly intended to augment and supplement the penury conditions of poverty and provide financial benefits in the shape of wages while executing schemes of nature as described under the Act. 

The judgment of the court:

The argument on the strength of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is also not well-founded, as the nature of the claim, the work and the projects that are to be executed have been clearly explained by the respondents to be of a different nature and not a regular workforce engaged for performing any regular work. The two classes, therefore, being different, we do not find this to be a case attracting Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Thus, the Supreme Court, therefore, did not approve of the reasoning given by the Karnataka High Court and observed that the High Court would be at liberty to decide the matter uninfluenced by the said Division Bench judgment.

By prescription of a new wage revision, as observed above, and in view of the Supreme Court having not approved of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, referred to above, we are not persuaded to extend any such relief for the reasons given hereinabove, as we do not find the provisions under challenge to be ultra vires Article 14 and Article 23 of the Constitution of India.

For all the reasons, the challenge raised fails and these petitions stand closed accordingly. No costs.

Download the copy: