Minimum wagesReasonable restrictionSupreme Court of India

Bhikusa Yamasa Kshatriya v Union of India

AIR 1963 Supreme Court 159119631 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Central Government fixed minimum wages for employment in a scheduled industry. Employer (Bhikusa Yamasa) challenged the fixation as arbitrary and violative of Article 19(1)(g)
Issue
Whether fixation of minimum wages by government violates the employer's fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g).
Held
Minimum Wages Act is welfare legislation protecting workers from exploitation.
Principle
The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is a welfare legislation aimed at protecting workers from exploitation. The fixation of minimum wages by the government is not an encroachment on the employer's fundamental right to carry on business (Article 19(1)(g)). It is a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public.
Cite this

Facts

  • Central Government fixed minimum wages for employment in a scheduled industry
  • Employer (Bhikusa Yamasa) challenged the fixation as arbitrary and violative of Article 19(1)(g)
  • Argued: the prescribed minimum was so high that it made business unviable
  • Government defended under Article 19(6) (reasonable restriction)

Issue

  1. Whether fixation of minimum wages by government violates the employer's fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g).

Held

  • Minimum Wages Act is welfare legislation protecting workers from exploitation
  • Fixation of minimum wages is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6)
  • No employer has a fundamental right to carry on business by paying starvation wages
  • If an employer cannot pay minimum wages, the business has no right to exist
  • Challenge dismissed

Ratio decidendi

The fixation of minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is a reasonable restriction on the right to carry on business. An industry that cannot pay minimum wages has no right to exist. The protection of workers from exploitation is a matter of public interest justifying the restriction.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Authority upholding constitutional validity of Minimum Wages Act
  • "No right to exist" dictum is quotable
  • Key line: "In Bhikusa Yamasa v. Union of India (1963), the Supreme Court held that minimum wage fixation is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) and that an industry which cannot pay minimum wages has no right to exist."

Cite this

Citation

Bhikusa Yamasa Kshatriya v. Union of India AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1591

Reported: AIR 1963 SC 1591. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.