BHARATHIYA MAZDOOR SANGHA FELIX PAI BAZAR MANGALORE-575001 REP. BY SRI YOGISH BHAT, YATINDRA S/O SUBBA MOOLYA, JAYARAJ SHETTY S/O. RUKKU SHETTY, PADMANABHA SHETTY S/O. TIMMAPPA AND SHARATH KUMAR SHETTY S/O. SADASHIVA SHETTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA, R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition in W.P. No. 30619/2009 is filed in public interest raising certain grievances with regard to the fixation of the 'wage rate' as contemplated. The very same issues have been raised in W.P. Nos. 29954 -958/2009 c/w 28685 -689/2009 and 32502/2009 and the relief claimed therein is also similar. However, since the issue has been raised in public interest in the first of the above noted petitions, the same would relate to the other petitioners as well and as such the petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE petitioners are aggrieved only insofar as the power retained by the Central Government under Section 6(1) of the. Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 ('Act 2005' for short) to notify 'wage rate' less than the minimum wage payable. In exercise of the said power, the Central Government by its notification dated 01.01.2009 has notified the State wise wage rate for agricultural labourers. In this regard, the issue in the instant petitions relates to the fixation of the 'wage rate' insofar as the State of Karnataka at Rs. 82/ - per day. Though the rate has been subsequently increased, the grievance is that the said 'wage rate' notified by the Central Government is lesser than the minimum wage fixed by the State Government for agricultural labourers in exercise of the power under Minimum Wages Act. In this regard, it is the case of the petitioners that Section 6(2) of the Act 2005 at the first instance provided for the 'wage rate' to be fixed at the same rate as the minimum wage fixed by the State Government under Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 ('MW Act' for short). It is therefore contended that the power under sub -section (1) to Section 6 of the Act 2005 is arbitrary and discriminatory inasmuch as it provides for fixation of wage rate which would be lesser than the minimum wage prescribed under another central enactment. It is contended that the term 'wage rate' is defined in Section 2(s) of the Act 2005 to mean the 'wage rate' defined in Section 6 and further Section 3(2) provides that every person who has done the work given to him under the scheme would be entitled to receive wages at the 'wage rate'. Hence, the 'wage rate' with reference to Section 6 cannot be less than the minimum wages prescribed and therefore, the exercise of the power under Section 6(1) to reduce such wage in respect of persons undertaking work under the scheme provided under the Act would be contrary to the right guaranteed under Article 23 of the Constitution of India. Hence, Section 6(1) being contrary to the constitutional requirement is liable to be struck down is the contention. In that context, it is contended that the impugned notifications prescribing lesser wages than the minimum wages in exercise of such arbitrary power under Section 6(1) of the Act are also liable to be quashed and the difference of the 'wage rate' in comparison to the minimum wage as on the date of the notification is liable to be paid to the wage seekers.

(3.) HEARD Ms. Sumana Baliga, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Amarendra Saran, learned senior counsel on behalf of Sri Kalyan Basavaraj, learned Assistant Solicitor General for first respondent and Sri R. Devdas, learned Government. Advocate for second respondent in the light of the above and perused the petition papers.