Applications for the LAMP Fellowship 2025-26 will open soon. Sign up here to be notified when the dates are announced.
Presently, there are around 40 state and central laws regulating different aspects of labour, such as resolution of industrial disputes, working conditions in factories, and wage and bonus payments. Over the years, some experts have recommended that these laws should be consolidated for easier compliance.[1] Since the current laws vary in their applicability, consolidation would also allow for greater coverage.
Following these recommendations, the Code on Wages was introduced in the Lok Sabha in August 2017. The Code consolidates four laws related to minimum wages, payment of wages and bonus, and a law prohibiting discrimination between men and women during recruitment promotion and wage payment.
The Code was subsequently referred to the Standing Committee on Labour for examination. The Committee has met some experts and stakeholders to hear their views. In this context, we explain the current laws, key provisions of the Code, and some issues to consider.
Who will be entitled to minimum wages?
Currently, the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 lists the employments where employers are required to pay minimum wages to workers. The Act applies to the organised sector as well as certain workers in the unorganised sector such as agricultural workers. The centre and states may add more employments to this list and mandate that minimum wages be paid for those jobs as well.[2] At present, there are more than 1700 employments notified by the central and state governments.[3]
The Code proposes to do away with the concept of bringing specific jobs under the Act, and mandates that minimum wages be paid for all types of employment – irrespective of whether they are in the organised or the unorganised sector.
The unorganised sector comprises 92% of the total workforce in the country.1 A large proportion of these workers are currently not covered by the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Experts have noted that over 90% of the workers in the unorganised sector do not have a written contract, which hampers the enforcement of various labour laws.[4]
Will minimum wages be uniform across the country?
No, different states will set their respective minimum wages. In addition, the Code introduces a national minimum wage which will be set by the central government. This will act as a floor for state governments to set their respective minimum wages. The central government may set different national minimum wages for different states or regions. For example, the centre can set a national minimum wage of Rs 10,000 for Uttar Pradesh and Rs 12,000 for Tamil Nadu. Both of these states would then have to set their minimum wages either equal to or more than the national minimum wage applicable in that state.
The manner in which the Code proposes to implement the national minimum wage is different from how it has been thought about in the past. Earlier, experts had suggested that a single national minimum wage should be introduced for the entire country.1,[5] This would help in bringing uniformity in minimum wages across states and industries. In addition, it would ensure that workers receive a minimum income regardless of the region or sector in which they are employed.
The concept of setting a national minimum wage exists in various countries across the world. For instance, in the United Kingdom one wage rate is set by the central government for the entire country.[6] On the other hand, in the United States of America, the central government sets a single minimum wage and states are free to set a minimum wage equal to or above this floor.[7]
On what basis will the minimum wages be calculated and fixed?
Currently, the central government sets the minimum wage for certain employments, such as mines, railways or ports among others. The state governments set the minimum wage for all other employments. These minimum wages can be fixed based on the basis of different criteria such as type of industry or skill level of the worker. For example, Kerala mandates that workers in oil mills be paid minimum wages at the rate of Rs 370 per day if they are unskilled, Rs 400 if they are semi-skilled and Rs 430 if they are skilled.[8]
The Code also specifies that the centre or states will fix minimum wages taking into account factors such as skills required and difficulty of work. In addition, they will also consider price variations while determining the appropriate minimum wage. This process of fixing minimum wages is similar to the current law.
Will workers be entitled to an overtime for working beyond regular hours?
Currently, the central or state government define the number of hours that constitute a normal working day. In case an employee works beyond these hours, he is entitled to an overtime rate which is fixed by the government. As of today, the central government has fixed the overtime rate at 1.5 times normal wages in agriculture and double the normal wages for other employments.[9]
The Code proposes to fix this overtime rate at twice the prevailing wage rate. International organisations have recommended that overtime should be 1.25 times the regular wage.[10]
Does the Code prohibit gender discrimination between workers?
Currently, the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 prohibits employers from discriminating in wage payments as well as recruitment of workers on the basis of gender. The Code subsumes the 1976 Act, and contains specific provisions which prohibit gender discrimination in matters related to wages. However, unlike in the 1976 Act, the Code does not explicitly prohibit gender discrimination at the stage of recruitment.
How is the Code going to be enforced?
The four Acts being subsumed under the Code specify that inspectors will be appointed to ensure that the laws are being enforced properly. These inspectors may carry out surprise checks, examine persons, and require them to give information.
The Code introduces the concept of a ‘facilitator’ who will carry out inspections and also provide employers and workers with information on how to improve their compliance with the law. Inspections will be carried out on the basis of a web-based inspection schedule that will be decided by the central or state government.
——————————————–
[1]. Report of the National Commission on Labour, Ministry of Labour and Employment, 2002, http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/1237548159/NLCII-report.pdf.
[2]. Entries 22, 23 and 24, List III, Seventh Schedule, Constitution of India.
[3]. Report on the Working of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Ministry of Labour and Employment, 2013, http://labourbureaunew.gov.in/UserContent/MW_2013_final_revised_web.pdf.
[4]. Report on Conditions of Work and Promotions of Livelihood in the Unorganised Sector, National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector, 2007, http://nceuis.nic.in/Condition_of_workers_sep_2007.pdf.
[5]. Report of the Working Group on Labour Laws and other regulations for the Twelfth five-year plan, Ministry of Labour and Employment, 2011, http://planningcommission.gov.in/aboutus/committee/wrkgrp12/wg_labour_laws.pdf.
[6]. Section 1(3), National Minimum Wage Act, 1998, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/39/pdfs/ukpga_19980039_en.pdf.
[7]. Section 206(a)(1), The Fair Labour Standards Act, 1938, https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/statutes/FairLaborStandAct.pdf.
[8]. G.O. (P) No.36/2017/LBR, Labour and Skills Department, Government of Kerala, 2017, https://kerala.gov.in/documents/10180/547ca516-c104-4b31-8ce7-f55c2de8b7ec.
[9]. Section 25(1), Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950
[10]. C030-Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices) Convention (No. 30), 1930,http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312175.
A few minutes ago, the Supreme Court delivered a judgement striking down Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This was in response to a PIL that challenged the constitutionality of this provision. In light of this, we present a background to Section 66 A and the recent developments leading up to its challenge before the Court. What does the Information Technology Act, 2000 provide for? The Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 provides for legal recognition for transactions through electronic communication, also known as e-commerce. The Act also penalizes various forms of cyber crime. The Act was amended in 2009 to insert a new section, Section 66A which was said to address cases of cyber crime with the advent of technology and the internet. What does Section 66(A) of the IT Act say? Section 66(A) of the Act criminalises the sending of offensive messages through a computer or other communication devices. Under this provision, any person who by means of a computer or communication device sends any information that is:
Over the past few years, incidents related to comments, sharing of information, or thoughts expressed by an individual to a wider audience on the internet have attracted criminal penalties under Section 66(A). This has led to discussion and debate on the ambit of the Section and its applicability to such actions. What have been the major developments in context of this Section? In the recent past, a few arrests were made under Section 66(A) on the basis of social media posts directed at notable personalities, including politicians. These were alleged to be offensive in nature. In November 2012, there were various reports of alleged misuse of the law, and the penalties imposed were said to be disproportionate to the offence. Thereafter, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court, challenging this provision on grounds of unconstitutionality. It was said to impinge upon the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. How has the government responded so far? Subsequently, the central government issued guidelines for the purposes of Section 66(A). These guidelines clarified that prior approval of the Deputy Commissioner or Inspector General of Police was required before a police officer or police station could register a complaint under Section 66(A). In May 2013, the Supreme Court (in relation to the above PIL) also passed an order saying that such approval was necessary before any arrest is to be made. Since matters related to police and public order are dealt with by respective state governments, a Supreme Court order was required for these guidelines to be applicable across the country. However, no changes have been made to Section 66 A itself. Has there been any legislative movement with regard to Section 66(A)? A Private Member Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha in 2013 to amend Section 66(A) of the IT Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill stated that most of the offences that Section 66(A) dealt with were already covered by the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. This had resulted in dual penalties for the same offence. According to the Bill, there were also inconsistencies between the two laws in relation to the duration of imprisonment for the same offence. The offence of threatening someone with injury through email attracts imprisonment of two years under the IPC and three years under the IT Act. The Bill was eventually withdrawn. In the same year, a Private Members resolution was also moved in Parliament. The resolution proposed to make four changes: (i) bring Section 66(A) in line with the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution; (ii) restrict the application of the provision to communication between two persons; (iii) precisely define the offence covered; and (iv) reduce the penalty and make the offence a non-cognizable one (which means no arrest could be made without a court order). However, the resolution was also withdrawn. Meanwhile, how has the PIL proceeded? According to news reports, the Supreme Court in February, 2015 had stated that the constitutional validity of the provision would be tested, in relation to the PIL before it. The government argued that they were open to amend/change the provision as the intention was not to suppress freedom of speech and expression, but only deal with cyber crime. The issues being examined by the Court relate to the powers of the police to decide what is abusive, causes annoyance, etc,. instead of the examination of the offence by the judiciary . This is pertinent because this offence is a cognizable one, attracting a penalty of at least three years imprisonment. The law is also said to be ambiguous on the issue of what would constitute information that is “grossly offensive,” as no guidelines have been provided for the same. This lack of clarity could lead to increased litigation. The judgement is not available in the public domain yet. It remains to be seen on what the reasoning of the Supreme Court was, in its decision to strike down Section 66A, today.
