Sanjit Roy v State of Rajasthan
Rule established
Payment of wages below the statutorily prescribed minimum wage to workers engaged on famine relief or drought relief works amounts to forced labour within the meaning of Article 23 of the Constitution, and cannot be justified merely because the work is offered as relief during a scarcity or emergency; the state cannot use economic distress as a ground to pay less than minimum wages.
Facts
- The Rajasthan government engaged workers on relief works during a period of drought or famine, paying them wages below the minimum wage prescribed under the applicable minimum wages legislation
- The state defended this practice on the basis that the relief work was itself a benefit extended to distressed persons during an emergency, and that ordinary minimum wage requirements should not strictly apply in this charitable, relief-oriented context
Issue
- Whether payment of wages below the statutory minimum wage to workers engaged on state relief works during a famine or drought amounts to forced labour prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution.
Held
- The Supreme Court held that any labour or service performed for remuneration less than the minimum wage amounts to "forced labour" within the meaning of Article 23, since the worker, driven by economic necessity, cannot be said to have truly and freely consented to work for less than the wage the law itself has determined to be the bare minimum
- The state's justification, that the relief work was a benevolent measure during a scarcity, was rejected; economic distress and emergency conditions do not entitle the state to pay sub-minimum wages, as this would compound the very economic distress the relief measure claimed to address
- The Court held that the prohibition against forced labour in Article 23 applies to the state just as it applies to private employers, and possibly with greater rigour, since the state is expected to be a model employer upholding constitutional guarantees
- Payment of the full statutory minimum wage was directed to be made to the affected workers
Ratio Decidendi
Payment of wages below the legally prescribed minimum wage constitutes forced labour prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution, regardless of whether the work is framed as ordinary employment or as charitable relief work during an emergency such as famine or drought; the state cannot invoke economic distress to justify sub-minimum wage payments.
How to use it in an exam
- The leading authority connecting minimum wage law to the constitutional prohibition on forced labour under Article 23, essential for questions bridging labour law and fundamental rights
- Pair with Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India (1982) for the parallel holding that non-payment of minimum wages amounts to forced labour in the context of Asiad construction workers
- Key line: minimum wage is not charity; paying less, even under the guise of relief, is constitutionally prohibited forced labour
Source
Source: AIR 1983 SC 328; landmark authority connecting sub-minimum wages to forced labour under Article 23, cross-verify citation before exam use
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.