Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]latest-news-updates/bid-to-bring-mgnrega-pay-at-par-with-minimum-wages-by-anindo-dey-3618.html"/> LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Bid to bring MGNREGA pay at par with minimum wages by Anindo Dey | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

Bid to bring MGNREGA pay at par with minimum wages by Anindo Dey
With the state government finally increasing the minimum wages by 35% from January 1, 2011, the focus of the on-going Mazdoor Haq Yatra in the state is now on increasing the wages under MGNREGA from the current freeze at Rs 100 to meet the minimum wages.

Not only activists of the Yatra plan to rake up this issue nationally, but with their prime demands from the state met, the entire focus of the October 2 congregation at the Statue Circle in Jaipur automatically shifts to MGNREGA being governed by the Minimum Wages Act, besides other issues of transparency in the Act.

And though the ministry of rural development has responded in the negative to such a recommendation from the working group on wages, formed under the National Employment Guarantee Council, but interestingly the additional solicitor general Indira Jaising feels otherwise.

The ministry responding to the proposal has said: "This is not feasible. The wage rates fixed under Section 6 (1) of the Act are distinct from the minimum wages. The provisions of the Act have to be respected."

But Nikhil Dey of the Suchna Evum Rozgar Ka Adhikar Abhiyan, an organisation that is spearheading the Yatra says, "It is shocking indeed that the Centre takes such a view. This is a violation of the fundamental rights of workers as well as Supreme Court and high court decisions on the Minimum Wages Act.

"The effective "freeze" of NREGA wages at Rs 100 per day also directly violates the Minimum Wages Act, since all workers are entitled to the statutory minimum wage applicable in their respective states," he adds.

In her opinion on MGNREGA overriding the Minimum Wages Act Indira Jaising taking a view of Section 6 of the Act says: "At the first glance, this (Section 6) may lead to the impression that the wage noted under subsection (1) may or may not be a minimum wage fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. However, on closer examination, this view may not be correct."

Currently, wages under NREGA have been notified under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act at Rs 100 per day. This was adopted as the other provision under the Act of the Centre fixing various wage rate for different area provided that such rate is not less than Rs 60. In the absence of such a system the minimum wage for agricultural labour 1948 at Rs 100 was adopted.

Jaising opines, in the light of the Sanjit Roy versus State of Rajasthan (1983) and the People's Union for Democratic Rights Vs. Union of India (1982), " Section 6 needs to be considered in the light of these decisions. So read, it should be clear that the expression "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 in it cannot permit the Centre to fix a wage below the minimum wage in the state in question for to do so would be a clear violation of Article 23 of the Constitution of India."

She also adds: "The Central Government cannot be left with the arbitrary choice of deciding whether to pay under sub-section (2) or to pay under subsection (1) of section 6. Regardless of the subsection under which wage is fixed, there must be a parity in the quantum of payment under both the above said sub-sections."

"Hence, in my opinion, the fact that the payment is made with the object of providing guaranteed work to the unemployed is irrelevant to the question what should be the rate at which wages are to be paid," she says.

She also adds: "It is irrelevant, whether such employment is in a relief work, under National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, casual work, contract work. It is equally irrelevant whether the payment is made monthly, weekly or daily. It is equally irrelevant whether rate is a time rate or piece rate. The clause in subsection (1) of section 6 by itself will not enable the Centre to fix a wage at a rate lower than what is provided under the Minimum Wages Act. The payment of wage below minimum wage would amount to forced labour."