Employment LawDispute Regarding Payment of Minimum Wages to Mid-Day Meal Cooks in Government Schools

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Madhyan Bhojan Rasoiya Mazdoor Sangh Husainganj, Lko. vs. Union of India & Others, Civil Appeal Numbers 3479 of 2015 decided on 08.02.2023 addressed the issue of inadequate honorarium paid to mid-day meal cooks/helpers in government schools. Referring to Section 2(y) of the Code on Wages, 2019 and the prohibition of forced labour under Article 23 of the Constitution, the court directed the government to pay minimum wages with arrears.

FACTS

Madhyan Bhojan Rasoiya Mazdoor Sangh (hereinafter referred to as “the Petitioner”), a registered trade union, filed a petition on behalf of workers engaged in preparing mid-day meals in government-run and government-aided schools.

A Government Order dated 25.06.2004 was issued, mandating the provision of mid-day meals for a minimum of 200 days in a calendar year, with cooks cum helpers to be appointed for a period of one year. The Petitioner argued that the honorarium paid to the workers for their semi-skilled work was inadequate and did not meet the minimum wage standards set by the Central Government.

The Petitioner contended that the payment of honorarium below minimum wages constituted forced labor, prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India. Previous court orders had recognized similar issues regarding payment to cooks preparing mid-day meals as a form of forced labor.

The dispute revolved around whether the honorarium paid to the workers should be considered wages under the Code on Wages, 2019.

ISSUES

1. Whether the honorarium paid to the Cooks cum Helpers constitutes wages as defined under the Code on Wages, 2019?
2. Whether the payment of honorarium below minimum wages amounts to forced labour prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution?
3. Whether the Central and State Governments have failed to ensure dignity and equality of the workers by paying inadequate honorarium?

CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES

The primary contention raised by the Petitioner was that the honorarium paid to these workers was grossly inadequate and exploitative. The Petitioner argued that although the cooks/helpers performed semi-skilled work, they were paid only INR 1,000 per month initially, which was later enhanced to INR 1,500 and then INR 2,000 per month for only ten months in a calendar year. This payment was far below the prescribed minimum wages for semi-skilled laborers in Uttar Pradesh, which was INR 6,325 per month as per a government order dated January 28, 2014, and subsequently increased to INR 10,483 per month by an order dated September 20, 2022. The Petitioner argued that such low payment not only violated their right to minimum wages but also amounted to “forced labor” under Article 23 of the Indian Constitution. Citing the Code on Wages, 2019, the Petitioner contended that the term “honorarium” was being improperly used to justify inadequate compensation, despite the fact that these workers were engaged in regular, ongoing employment.

Additionally, the Petitioner alleged discrimination by the government, highlighting that cooks/helpers in other institutions, such as Madarsas and religious organizations, were classified as semi-skilled laborers and paid wages in line with government-prescribed minimum wages. The Petitioner argued that there was no justifiable reason for treating mid-day meal cooks/helpers differently, as they performed the same type of work. Furthermore, the Petitioner pointed out that many cooks had been working for over a decade without any social security benefits or financial stability and were trapped in a cycle of economic exploitation.

On the other hand, the Union of India and the State Government (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondents”) attempted to justify the honorarium payments by arguing that the mid-day meal scheme was introduced as a welfare measure aimed at improving nutrition and education for children in government and aided schools. They contended that the honorarium was fixed based on the financial constraints of the government and the need to maximize the reach of the scheme within available resources. The Respondents emphasized that the scheme’s objective was to benefit children, and cooks/helpers were engaged as part of this larger goal, with honorarium payments made accordingly.

The Respondents further argued that honorarium could not be equated with wages, asserting that the Petitioners were not entitled to the minimum wages prescribed under the Code on Wages, 2019. They maintained that the payments were fair in light of the purpose of the scheme and the available budget. Despite these arguments, the Respondents failed to provide a clear rationale for the significant disparity between the honorarium paid to mid-day meal cooks/helpers and the minimum wages prescribed for semi-skilled workers in other sectors.

Thus, the court was tasked with deciding whether the honorarium paid to the cooks/helpers constituted forced labor and whether they were entitled to minimum wages under the law.

DECISION AND FINDINGS

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court emphasized that Article 23 of the Constitution prohibits all forms of forced labour, including situations where remuneration is paid but labour is provided under compulsion. It highlighted that the Constitution’s overarching aim is to establish a socio-economic order, and every provision must be interpreted in a way that furthers this objective.

The Court found that the payment of honorarium below the minimum wage to the workers constituted forced labor and violated their fundamental rights. In response, the Court issued a mandamus, directing the Central and State Governments to ensure that the cooks and helpers under the mid-day meal scheme are paid wages in accordance with applicable minimum wage laws.

Additionally, the Court ordered the retrospective payment of arrears starting from January 28, 2014, when the cooks/helpers were classified as semi-skilled workers. The Court set a four-month deadline for compliance, mandating both governments to bear the financial burden according to the existing cost-sharing ratio under the scheme.

For prospective relief, the Court ruled that moving forward, cooks and helpers must be paid minimum wages, which should be periodically revised by the government, with the financial responsibility shared between the Central and State Governments.

AMLEGAL REMARKS

The writ petition was allowed, and the Central and State Governments were directed to pay the Cooks cum Helpers at the rate of minimum wages, with the financial burden to be shared based on their respective contributions under the scheme.

This judgment underscores the judiciary’s crucial role in safeguarding the rights of disadvantaged sections of society, particularly in cases related to government policies. It emphasizes key constitutional principles such as the Right to Equality, where discrimination in remuneration for similarly placed workers is deemed a violation, and the Right Against Exploitation, as economic compulsion resulting in inadequate wages constitutes forced labor under Article 23.

The Court also highlighted the principle of Socio-Economic Justice, stressing the importance of governance that upholds the dignity and well-being of all individuals, particularly vulnerable workers. This case establishes a significant precedent in labor law, affirming that honorarium payments cannot be used to circumvent statutory wage requirements, and illustrates the Court’s willingness to grant relief beyond the specific prayers of a petition to address systemic exploitation.

Team AMLEGALS