Skip to content

CS Professional · Labour Laws and Practice · Constitution and Labour Laws

A company pays its sweepers, hired on daily wages, less than the minimum wage, arguing that they accepted the rate voluntarily. Referring to the Supreme Court's reasoning in People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (Asiad Workers case), which view is correct?

Under the Asiad Workers case, paying less than the minimum wage is forced labour prohibited by Article 23, because workers accept such terms due to economic compulsion. Their apparent consent is no defence, and the protection applies against private employers too.

  1. AVoluntary acceptance validates payment below the minimum wage
  2. BPayment below the minimum wage amounts to forced labour under Article 23, since economic compulsion drives acceptanceCorrect
  3. CArticle 23 applies only to payment in kind and not to wages
  4. DArticle 23 binds only the State and never private employers

Explanation

The Court held that 'forced labour' under Article 23 includes work obtained for less than the minimum wage because the worker's economic helplessness leaves no real choice. Consent is therefore no defence. Article 23 also operates against private persons, so option D is wrong.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Constitution and Labour Laws shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Constitution and Labour LawsFree diagnostic mock

More Constitution and Labour Laws questions