GROUP MEMBERS….NAME ROLL NUMBER

Harshita Saloni 396

Kanika Kamath 62

Prachi Khemka 516

Satyam Nayar 595

Garima Singh 476

Tushar Kumar 88

Untimely payment

Unauthorized Penalty/

fines

Non uniformity

IN THE LIGHT OF RECOMMENDATION, THE GOVT. OF INDIA INTRODUCED A BILL SEEKING TO REGULAR THE DELAYS AND DEDUCTION IN THE PAYMENT OF WAGES TO INDUSTRIAL AND PLANTATION LABOUR’

Bill passed 1936

Came into force

28th March 1937

First date of payment of wages Secondly deduction from

wages whether as fine or otherwise

APPLICABILITY Every factories Railway administration Any industrial or other establishment Any other establishment by giving notification of at

least 3months in official gazette

RESPONSIBILITY FOR PAYMENT OF WAGES (SECTION 3)Organization Responsible person

Factories manager

Railway administration Person appointed

industrial and other establishment Supervision and control payment of wage

contractor Person appointed by contractor

Other cases Person designated for this purpose

FIXATION OF WAGE-PERIOD (SECTION4) Every person responsible for the payment of

wages under section 3 shall fix period referred to as wage-period in respect of which such wages shall be payable

MAX. WAGE

PERIOD1 MONTH

MODE OF PAYMENT OF WAGES Wages to be paid in

current coins or currency notes

After obtaining the authorization, either by cheque or by crediting the wages in employee's bank account.After obtaining the authorization, either by currency notes

 PAYMENT OF WAGES IN CASH

Tamil Nadu: CASE December 2007 Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, government of

Tamil Nadu communicated to the Government of India his apprehensions about the payment of wages through banks. The reasons advanced were that the workers would have to commute long distances to get their wages from banks losing one day's wages and that the banks would adjust previous arrears from their dues.

March 2008 State Employment Guarantee Council also directed the

government of Tamil Nadu to continue the system of payment of wages in cash in the state.

Case study

Problem The practice of making payments to the workers through bank was fraught with the risk of malpractices particularly since the wage disbursement agency and the Scheme implementing agency were the same.

Judgment . In the Village Payment Committees, formed for the purpose of wage disbursement, majority of the members were persons who were responsible for implementing the Scheme, viz. President, Vice-President and Ward Member of Village Panchayats.

Solution Government of Tamil Nadu replied that from 2012-13 it had decided to dispense with the existing practice of disbursing wages to the workers through bank to curtail the scope of malpractices in wage payments and to separate the wage disbursement agency from the implementing agency. The wages were now being paid in CASH!!!

AMBA PRASAD AND ORS. VS JASWANT SUGAR MILLS LTD. AND ANR.

FACTS OF THE CASE It would contribute to a proper understanding of the case before us if it is

mentioned at the outset that the mills carried on the business of crushing

sugar-cane and manufacture of sugar. For the purposes of the working of

the mills, a year is divided into two parts, that is, working season and off

season. Working season are the months during which operations in the

sugar mills are carried on and crushing of sugar cane and manufacture of

sugar take place. Off season is the period during which the actual process

of manufacture of sugar or crushing of sugar-cane does not take place.

During this period only skeleton staff is maintained in order to keep the

premises and machinery installed in the factory clean. Most of the workers

are not on duty during the off season.

The workers of Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. approached the Authority under the Payment of Wages

Act, under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 on the allegation that they were

entitled to certain amount of money as retaining allowance which had not been paid to them by

the mills. By means of the order dated 15th June,1959; the Authority awarded certain sums to

each one of the 28 appellants.

The mills then filed writ petition in the Allahabad High Court for the quashing of the order of the

Authority. The writ petition was heard and the order passed by the Authority was subsequently

quashed.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the court, the workers filed the instant special appeal.

Mr. S. N. Misra became the counsel for the appellants, and Mr. S. N. Kackker became the

counsel for the mills. No one appeared on behalf of the Authority.

ARGUMENTS

FOR Mr. S. N. Misra contended that there was an error in having quashed the order passed by

the Authority and that the view taken by the court that the amounts sought to be

recovered were not "wages" as defined in Section 2(vi) of the Act was incorrect.

The case of the appellants was that in addition to the remuneration that they were

getting during the working season, they were entitled to a certain amount of money as

retaining allowance. They rest their claim on the following statement issued by the

labour department-

“And whereas, in the opinion of the State Government it is necessary to enforce the

recommendations of the said Committee for securing the public convenience and

maintenance of public order and supplies and services essential to the life of the

community and for maintaining employment.”

AGAINSTThe court was of the opinion that the retaining allowance paid to the workers during the off season did not amount to wages as defined by Section 2(vi) of the Act. That provision reads :--As per Section 2(vi) of the Payment of Wages Act, “ ‘wages’ means all remuneration, capable of being expressed in terms of money which would, if the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable, whether conditionally upon the regular attendance, good work or conduct or other behaviour of the person employed, or otherwise, to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes any bonus or other additional remuneration of the nature aforesaid which would be so payable and any sum payable to such person by reason of the termination of his employment but does not include-

(a) any bonus (whether under a scheme of profit sharing or otherwise) which does not form part of the remuneration payable under the terms of employment or which is not

payable under any award or settlement between the parties or order of a Court;

(b)the value of any house-accommodation, supply of light, water, medical attendance, or other amenity, or of any

service excluded by general or special order of the State Government;

(c) any contribution paid by the employer to any pension, fund or provident fund;

(d) any travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession;

(e) any sum paid to the person employed to defray special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment;

or(f) any gratuity payable on discharge.”

It is clear from the definition that before any amount can be 'wages', it must be ‘remuneration’. Remuneration ordinarily means any consideration, which a person receives for giving

his services. Remuneration also means a quid pro quo.

JUDGEMENT Mr. Misra submitted that it had never been the case of the mills’ having no

amount as retaining allowance due to the appellants, but only that the amount

was not liable to be recovered under the provisions of the Act.

It is true that in the writ petition filed by the mills, it had not been stated that

no amount as retaining allowance was due from them to the appellants. It does

also appear that the party proceeded on the assumption that the amount,

though due, was not recoverable under the machinery provided by the Act.

It was held by a Division Bench of that Court that retaining allowance was not

'Wages' within the meaning of Section 2(vi) of the Payment of Wages Act and

therefore, the Payment of Wages Authority had no jurisdiction to order its

payment.

In view of what we have stated above this special appeal was dismissed.

CASE ANALYSIS There cannot be any doubt that remuneration is correlated to service and is a return in terms of

money or goods for services rendered by one party to another. We have to see whether retaining

allowance has an element of quid pro quo or is a return in terms of money or goods for services

rendered.

Admittedly during the off season no services are rendered by these workmen to the mills. During this

period the workmen are free to seek service of others or to keep themselves employed in any

undertaking or business of their own. It is, therefore, clear that the retaining allowance cannot be co-

related to the services rendered to the mills.

Therefore, it is nothing, but a compensation paid to the workmen for their denying themselves the

liberty to seek employment elsewhere or to work for themselves, during the coming working season

in the mills.

Consequently it is not possible to hold that the retaining allowance partakes of the nature of pay or

fees or remuneration. Once it is not remuneration, it cannot be wages within the meaning of the Act.

Therefore, the retaining allowance is not comprehended in the expression 'wages' as defined by

Section 2(vi) of the Act and for that reason the Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the claims

filed by the workers before it and to adjudicate upon the same. The court was, therefore, correct in

holding that the order passed by the Authority was without jurisdiction and therefore, liable to be

quashed.

DEDUCTION FROM WAGES

DEFINITION-SEC 7 –Provides that wages of an employed person shall be paid to him without deductions of any kind except those

authorized by or under the act .But some deductions which are allowed under the act .

One of those is deduction for absence of duty

DEDUCTION FOR ABSENCE FROM DUTY

(SECTION 9)DEDUCTION May be on account of the employed person from

the place or places where by the terms of the employment he is required to work.

1. Absence may be for the whole or any part of the period during which he is required to work

2. CONDITION A. Absence must be voluntary.3. B.IT Should be without permission of the employer.

Cases:MODI INDUSTRIES V/S STATE OF U.P.BANK OF INDIA V/S TS

IMPORTANT POINTS

Deduction –when absent where required to be present

DEEMED TO BE ABSENT –when although present at the work place he refuses to work in pursuance of strike or for any other cause

Deduction for 8 days wages –if 10 or more employed person acting in concert absent themselves without due notice and without reasonable cause.

"The normal rule of "no work no pay" is not applicable to cases where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a case where the employee remains away from work for his own reasons, although the work is offered to him.“

MODI INDUSTRIES V. STATE OF UP.--WORKMEN DID NOT WORK ALTHOUGH THE WORK WAS OFFERED TO THEM-NOT ENTITLED TO WAGES

19;12;90 DISPUTE BTW MANAGEMENT AND TRADE UNIOUN 21;12;90 WORKMEN CAME TO PREMISES BUT DID NOT

WORK RESULTING STOPPAGE WORKMEN SAID THEY COULDNOT WORK DUE TO SUSPENSN

OF 30 TECHNICAL WORKERS SO NOT POSSIBLE TO OPERATE MACHINES WITTHOUT THEM

27 12 90 AGREEMENT BTW THEM THAT EXCEPT THE WORKMAN SUSPENDED EVERY1 WILL GO AND DISCHARGE THEIR DUTIES

BUT IN SPITE OF THIS WORK CANNOT BE CARRIED ON ACC TO MGT ;NON COOPERATION BY WORKERS “BY TRADE

UNIOUNS;MGT DIDN’T PERMIT TO WORK

Case study

Section 15 .-AUTHORITIES -DICUSSIONS BY DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND LABOUR DEPARTMENTON 8 ;2;91 DISCUSSIONS ND BOTH WERE PRESENT TADE UNIOUN PEOPLE SAID IT CULDNT BE CARRIED OUT DUE TO SUSPENDED TECHNICAL ORKER EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE READY TO WORK

DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SAID TO REINSTATE THOSE WORKERS WHO ARE SUSPENDED AGAINST WHO NO SERIOUS CHARGES BUT MGT SAID THAT FOR THIS THEY NEED TO CONSULT HIGHER OFFICIA;L

11;1 91 –NEXT DATE BUT NO RESPONSE FRM MGT AND NO WORK IN CO.TILL 3-3 91 AND PRODUCTION STARTED BY 4-3-91

NO WAGES PAID BY MGT 21-12 90 TO 3;3;91 JUDGEMENT –If the workman did not work although the

work was offered to them he is not entitled to wages.

2.WORKMEN NOT WILLING TO WORK ALTHOUG WORK IS OFFERED TO THEM BANK OF INDIA V.S TS.KELEWAALA IN THIS THE WORKMAN IN SPITE OF THE NOTICE BY

THE EMPLOYER HAS GONE ON STRIKE SO SUPREME COURT GAVE THE RIGHT TO EMPLOYER TO DEDUCT THE WAGES ON THE DAY THEY HAVE GONE ON STRIKE

IN THIS EMPLOYER WAS WILLING TO OFFERS THE WORK BUT THEY HAD GONE ON STRIKE SAME JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA K JANKIRAM.BY SUPREME COURT

Case study

DEDUCTION FOR DAMAGES OR LOSS SEC-10

Deduction such as fine, deduction for amenities and services supplied by the

employer, advances paid, over payment of wages, loan

CASE STUDY : STATE OF MADRAS VS RAMASWAMI(K.) AND ORS ON 10TH

APRIL, 19581. The respondents are drivers employed to ply buses owned

by the State of Madras who run the State Transport Service in the City of Madras. The State claimed to deduct from wages due to them certain amounts for damages to the buses when they were being driven by them respectively. The drivers protested that the State was not entitled to make the deductions and they applied to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, for a decision that the deductions were not validly made.

2. The State purported to make the deductions under Section 7(2)(c) of the Payment of Wages Act. Under that provision deduction! from the wages of an employed person can be made for damage to or loss of goods expressly entrusted to the employed person for custody or for loss of money for which he is required to account, where such damage or loss is directly attributable to his neglect or default.

3. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, held that the deductions were improperly made because it had not been established that the buses which the employed persons operated were expressly entrusted to them for custody. In this view he did not go into the question whether the damage or loan was directly attributable to the neglect or default of the employed persons, He directed the State to pay the drivers the amounts deducted.

4. the short question to be decided is whether the buses were " expressly entrusted to the employed persons for custody." The arguments centred round two points, namely:

(1) whether the goods, that is, the buses, were expressly entrusted, and (2) whether the buses were entrusted to the drivers for custody.

The above construction of Section 7(2)(c) of the Act (Payment of Wages Act) might, It was suggested, lead to considerable hardship to the workers. In certain cases it might, but to restrict the application of the provision only to such employees as storekeepers, etc., might equally lead to considerable hardship to the employers. But for a provision like this, the employed persons might deal with the goods given to their care completely indifferent to their safety and preservation. With respect to the learned Judge, Subba Rao, J.,

There will be no order as to costs in this appeal.

INSIDER TRADING Insider trading is the buying , selling or dealing in securities of a listed company by any person who has the knowledge of material inside information which is not available to general public

EXAMPLE OF INSIDER TRADING

CORPORATE OFFICERS EMPLOYEES OF LAW ,BANKING ,BROKERAGE

AND PRINTING FIRMS GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

DEFINITION OF INSIDER TRADING

Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider

Trading)Regulation ,1992,does not directly definethe term insider

trading But it defines the terms- Insider” or who is an “insider Who is a “connected person What is “price sensitive information?”

WHO IS INSIDER? ANY PERSON WHO IS/WAS CONNECTED

WITH THE COMPANY OR DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN CONNECTED AND WHO IS REASONABLY EXPECTEDTO HAVE ACCESS /HAS RECEIVED /TO PUBLISHED PRICE SENSITIVE INFORMATION

WHO IS CONNECTED PERSON?

ANY PERSONWHO IS THE DIRCTOR U/S 2(13)OF CO.ACT OR WHO IS DEEMED TO BE A DIRECTOR U/S 307(10)OF CO.ACT OR OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OR HOLD A POSITION INVOLVING PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP OR BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WHETHER TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT AND WHO MAY REASONABLY EXPECTED TO HAVE ACCESS TO UPS

WHAT IS PRICE SENSITIVE INFORMATION

ANY INFORMATION WHICH RELATES DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO A COMPANY AND WHICH IF PUBLISHED LIKELY TO MATERIALLY AFFECT THE PRICE OF SECURITIES OF THE COMPANY.

DISADVANTAGES OF INSIDER TRADING USED TO MAKE PROFIT AT THE EXPENSE

OF OTHER INVESTOR LEADS TO LOSS OF CONDIDENTS OF

INVESTOR IN STOCK MARKET THE PROCESS CORRUPTS ‘THE LEVEL

PLAYING FIELD’ IT IS EASIER TO IDENTIFY THE

BENEFICIARIES OF INSIDER TRADING DEALING .BUT THE EXTENT OF LOSSES OCCURRED IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CALCULATE

SECTION 7(2)(J ) The employer can make deduction for the

payment to co-operative societies to a scheme of insurance maintained by Indian post office.

Such deduction shall be subject to such conditions as the appropriate government may impose.

MAJOOR SEHKARI BANK LTD. VS JASMAT GOPAL AND ANR. ON 23RD APRIL 1965 Petitioner 1 society is a co-operative society registered under the

Bombay Co-operative Societies Act , 1925, respondent 1 was a member of petitioner 1 society.

One Natwarlal Mohanlal, another member of the society, applied in February 1957 for a loan from the society. Under the said bylaws, the society would advance such a loan on the personal security of a member if two other members were to stand as sureties for him.

Case study

respondent 1 and the said Ahmed executed a bond of suretyship as contemplated by S. 24A of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925.

Before the aforesaid loan of Rs. 600 was repaid in full, the said Natwarlal and the said Ahmed Dawood left the service of petitioner 2 mills.

Judgement For the reasons aforesaid, the decision of

the competent Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was correct and, consequently, the petition must fail. The petition is rejected and the rule is discharged. The petitioners will pay to respondent 1 the costs of this petition

SECTION 7 (2) (KKK) Deductions from the wages of an

employed person shall be made only in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and may be of the following kinds only,

deductions made, with the written authorisation of the employed person, for payment of the fees payable by him for the membership of any trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (16 of 1926)."

COIMBATORE PERIYAR DISTRICTS VS NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION ON 14 JUNE, 2011 The petitioners 1 and 2 are registered Trade

Unions and petitioners 3 to 6 are members of one of the Union.

The National Textile Corporation owned seven national Textile Mills in Tamil Nadu, i.e, five in Coimbatore District and one each in Sivagangai and Ramnad Districts.

According to the petitioners, several workers working in respondents 2 to 5 NTC Unions in Tamil Nadu are members of the first and second petitioner Trade Unions.

Case study

On 27.12.2010 the Management of NTC Units addressed letters to the aforesaid four Unions recognised by the management to furnish the list of their members to enable the management to deduct subscription from their wages and remit to the Unions. The petitioners 1 and 2 were not issued with any such communication as they failed to get recognition.

However, the management did not deduct any such subscription and consequently on 28.1.2011 petitioner submitted a representation before the first respondent for which the first respondent replied on 27.1.2011 stating that the respondents will deduct subscription only for the Trade Unions which had secured 10% of the total votes polled, which are granted recognition.

Judgement; the registration of Trade Union is not

cancelled, the Unions will enjoy certain rights, of course with liabilities, in terms of Section 15 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Section 7(2)(kkk) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 deals with the deduction of subscriptions from the willing members and the employer is bound to deduct and remit the same into the account of the Trade Union

MAINTENANCE OF REGISTERS AND RECORDS. [SEC 13A] 

Every employer should maintain such registers and records giving such particulars of persons employed by him, the work performed by them, the wages paid to them, the deductions made from their wages, the receipts given by them and such other particulars and in such form as may be prescribed. 

Every register and record required to be maintained and preserved for a period of three years after the date of the last entry made therein. It means for every transaction made within employer and employee should have 3 years of record. 

AFTER DEDUCTION SECTION 14 APPOINMENT OF INSPECTORS INSPECTORS 

Inspectors. [Sec 14] 

The state government may appoint an inspector for purpose of this act. Every Inspector shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Sec 14(5)]. The inspector of this act is having powers mentioned below Inspector can make enquiry and examination whether the employers are properly obeying the rules mentioned under this act. 

Inspector with such assistance, if any, as he thinks fit, enter, inspect and search any premises of any railway, factory or industrial or other establishment at any reasonable time for the purpose of carrying out the objects of this Act. 

Inspector can supervise the payment of wages to persons employed upon any railway or in any factory or industrial or other establishment. 

Seize or take copies of such registers or documents or portions thereof as he may consider relevant in respect of an offence under this Act which he has reason to believe has been committed by an employer. 

CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES OR DELAY IN PAYMENT OF WAGES AND PENALTY FOR MALICIOUS OR VEXATIOUS CLAIMS. [SEC 15] (2005 AMENDMENTS) 

To hear and decide all claims arising out of deductions from the wages, or delay in payment of the wages, of persons employed or paid, including all matters, incidental to such claims, there will be a officer mentioned below appointed by the appropriate government. 

(a) any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation; or 

(b) any officer of the Central Government exercising functions as – 

(i) Regional Labour Commissioner; or 

(ii) Assistant Labour Commissioner with at least two years' experience; or 

(c) any officer of the State Government not below the rank of Assistant Labour Commissioner with at least two years' experience; or 

(d) a presiding officer of any Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) or under any corresponding law relating to the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in the State; or 

(e) any other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or a Judicial Magistrate, as the authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of deductions from the wages, or delay in payment of the wages, of persons employed or paid in that area, including all matters incidental to such claims: 

Sec 15(2) If any employer does opposite to the provisions of this act, any unreasonable

deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person, or any payment of wages has been delayed, in such case any lawyer or any Inspector under this Act or official of a registered trade union authorized to write an application to the authority appointed by government for direction of payment of wages according to this act. Every such application shall be presented within 12 months from the date on which the deduction from the wages was made or from the date on which the payment of the wages was due to be made. Time of making an application can be accepted if there is reasonable cause. 

Salamat v. The Agent, East Indian Rly.Case study

Case: In that case, an application for compensation was filed by a workman 10 years after the accident had taken place. During that period of 10 years he continued in the same job under the same employer and in the same pay as before the accident.

Judgement With great respect, this view appears to run counter with what was laid down in the case which arose out of an application under Section 15, Clause (2) of the Payment of Wages Act. There it was held that the explanation of delay was to cover the whole of the period of delay till the dale on which the application was made. If sufficient cases could be shown for not making the application within the period of 12 months prescribed in Section 15 (2) and not for the period thereafter, then that would lead to a position where the application could be made at any time. This was considered not to be a correct approach and we respectfully agree with the same.

Solution That was considered to be sufficient cause for not applying within the period of 12 months (which was the prescribed period of limitation for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act). The delay of 10 years thereafter was considered by the learned Judges to be of no material consequence as it was not necessary to be explained under the provisions of the Act

SECTION 16 SINGLE APPLICATION IN RESPECT

OF CLAIMS FROM UNPAID GROUP. [Section 16] 

There is no necessity of many applications if there are many employees whose wages has not been paid. Such all employees can make one application to the authority for payment of wages according to this act. 

SEC 17 APPEAL. [Section 17] 

In the following situation the parties who ever dissatisfied can appeal to the district court If the application dismissed by above authorities 

Employer imposed with compensation exceeding 300/- rupees by the authorities. 

If the amount exceeding 25/- rupees withheld by the employer to single unpaid employee. 50/- in case of many unpaid employees 

SECTION(20)-PENALTY FOR OFFENCES UNDER THE ACT. (1) Whoever being responsible for the payment of

wages to an employed person contravenes any of the provisions of any of following sections, namely, [Section 5 except sub-section (4) thereof, Section 7, Section 8 except sub-section (8) thereof, Section 9, Section 10 except subsection (2) thereof, and Sections 11 to 13], both inclusive, shall be punishable with fine [which shall not be less than two hundred rupees but which may extend to one thousand rupees].

(2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of Section 4, [sub-section (4) of Section 5, Section 6, sub-section (8) of Section 8, sub-section (2) of Section 10] or Section 25 shall be punishable with fine which may extend to [five hundred rupees].

(3) Whoever being required under this Act to maintain any records or registers or to furnish any information or return—

(a)  fails to maintain such register or record; or (b)  wilfully refuses or without lawful excuse neglects to

furnish such information or return; or (c)  wilfully furnishes or causes to be furnished any

information or return which he knows to be false; or (d)  refuses to answer or wilfully gives a false answer to

any question necessary for obtaining any information required to be furnished under this Act; shall, for each such offence, be punishable with fine ' [which shall not be less than two hundred rupees but which may extend to one thousand rupees].

(4)  Whoever— (a)  wilfully obstructs an Inspector in the discharge of his duties

under this Act; or (b)  refuses or wilfully neglects to afford an Inspector any

reasonable facility for making any entry, inspection, examination, supervision, or inquiry authorised by or under this Act in relation to any railway, factory or ^industrial or other establishment]; or

(c)  wilfully refuses to produce on the demand of an Inspector any register or other document kept in pursuance of this Act; or

(d) prevents or attempts to prevent or does anything which he has any reason to believe is likely to prevent any person from appearing before or being examined by an Inspector acting in pursuance of his duties under this Act,

shall be punishable with fine [which shall not be less than two hundred rupees but which may extend to one thousand rupees].

(5) If any person who has been convicted of any offence punishable under this Act is agains guilty of an offence involving contravention of the same provision, he shall be punishable on a subsequent conviction with imprisonment for a term 4[which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to six months and with fine which shall not be less than five hundred rupees but which may extend to three thousand rupees]:

Provided that for the purpose of this sub-section, no cognizance shall be taken of any conviction made more than two years before the date on which the commission of the offence which is being punished came to the knowledge of the Inspector.

(6)  If any person fails or wilfully neglects to pay the wages of any employed person by the date fixed by the authority in this behalf, he shall, without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him, be punishable with an additional fine which may extend to 5[one hundred rupees] for each day for which such failure or neglect continues.]

MINIMUM WAGES

ACT,1948

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MINIMUM WAGES ACT

& PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT

Payment of Wages Act

Applicability 1) Every Person employed in any Factory and a person employed in an Industrial or other Establishment and to persons employed upon any railway or through sub-contractor in railway.

Minimum Wages Act

Applicability

Any person who directly or through another person, where for himself or for any other Person employs one or more employees in any schedule Employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act.

Payment of Wages Act

Eligibility Every person who is employed in any of the above mentioned establishments and who is drawing less than Rs.10000/- per month.

Minimum Wages Act

EligibilityAny person who is employed for hire or reward to do any work in a scheduled Employment and includes an outdoor worker to whom any articles or Materials are given for either doing some work either at home or any other Premises

Payment of Wages Act

Benefits: the Act prescribes for

1) The regular and timely payment of wages (on or before 7th day or 10th day after last day of the wages period in respect of which the wages are payable)2) Preventing unauthorized deductions being made from wages and arbitrary fines.3) Wages exceeding Rs.5000/- to be paid by cheque. (Applicable for Andhra Pradesh only)

Minimum Wages Act

Benefits The Act prescribes the minimum rates of wages payable to employees for Different scheduled employments for different class of work and for adults, Adolescents, children and apprentices depending upon different localitiesPenal Provision Imprisonment up to 6 months and / or fine up to Rs. 500 is imposable for Contravention.

SONU VS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI,2005 The petitioner(Sonu) was engaged by

the respondent (appellant in this appeal) as a 'Sweeper' in the MCD Primary School, Karkardooma, Shahdara South.

The school runs in two shifts. The petitioner was employed in the girls primary school, where he served from 23.8.1988 to 25.6.97 continuously.

The respondent-school (appellant herein) has treated the petitioner as part time worker they have been paying him a fixed amount of Rs. 560/- per month treating him as part time employee with duty of 5 hours per day.

It is alleged that the petitioner from the date of his appointment has been entrusted with the work of sweeping, cleaning and dusting like regular sweepers working in the same department and working hours. However, for the last 9 years he has neither been regularized nor paid the minimum of the pay scale of Group-D, which is discriminatory and arbitrary

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as 'part time sweeper' on the death of his mother, who was also a part time sweeper. It is alleged that part time sweepers are regularized in a phased manner as per seniority and vacancy.

The petitioner has alleged that the respondent has to pay minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act for unskilled workers to which category the petitioner belongs.

DISPUTE MCD denied Minimum Wages as per the

Minimum Wages Act. And did not regularize Sonu for his 9 years of service thereby not granting him minimum wage.

JUDGEMENT The payment was made to Sonu of the

amount by which the minimum wages payable to him exceed the amount actually paid, together with the payment of such compensation AS PER Section 14,sub-section(2).

LABOUR CODE ON WAGES BILL,2015

“India's labor regulations - among the most restrictive and complex in the world - have constrained the growth of the formal manufacturing sector where these laws have their widest application.”

World Bank report in 2008

LABOUR CODE ON WAGES BILL, 2015A BILL to consolidate and amend the law relating to wages and bonus and the matters connected there with or incidental thereto.

````````````

Relative regulations and rigidity in labor laws[35]

Practice required by law  India  China  United StatesMinimum wage (US$/month) ₹6000 (US$91) /month 182.5 1242.6

Standard work day 8 hours 8 hours 8 hoursMinimum rest while at work 30 minutes per 6-hour None None

Maximum overtime limit 200 hours per year 432 hours per year None

Premium pay for overtime 100% 50% 50%

Dismissal due to redundancy

Yes, if approved by government

Yes, without approval of government

Yes, without approval of government

Government approval required for 1 person dismissal

Yes No No

Government approval required for 9 person dismissal

Yes No No

Government approval for redundancy dismissal granted

Rarely[ Not applicable Not applicable

Dismissal priority rules regulated Yes Yes No

Severance pay for redundancy dismissalof employee with 1 year tenure

2.1 week salary 4.3-week salary None

Severance pay for redundancy dismissalof employee with 5-year tenure

10.7-week salary 21.7-week salary None

OBJECTIVE The Labour Code on Wages replaces

four existing laws – the Minimum Wages Act 1948, the Payment of Wages Act 1936, the Payment of Bonus Act 1965, and the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976.

States will fix minimum wage ratesUnder the Minimum Wages Act 1948, both central and state government can fix minimum wage rates in various sectors, with 45 sectors in the central sphere and 1,679 areas under states' jurisdiction. State governments would be free to set the

minimum wage rate higher than this basic wage, but not lower than it. provided that while fixing or revising such minimum wage the state government shall take into consideration any guidelines made by the Minimum Wages Advisory Board constituted by the Central government.

Weakening of Equal Remuneration Act

The Bill proposes to replace the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 with a single provision prohibiting discrimination on ground of sex “in the matter of wages; under the same employer, in respect of work of same or similar nature”.

No more Inspectors, only facilitatorsIn a first, the Labour Code on Wages Bill proposes to replace Labour Inspectors, often portrayed as a burdensome remnant of the Inspector Raj, with “Facilitators”. The Bill proposes their role will be to “supply information and advice to employers and workers concerning the most effective means of complying with the provisions of this code”.

Restricting rights of trade unionsThe proposed law does away with Section 23(2) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 which permits trade unions to legally access audited accounts and balance-sheets of employers. This leaves workers with no possibility of scrutinising the financial claims of the employer, according to the Working People's Charter.

Thank You