U. Unichoyi v. State of Kerala
Rule established
Most authoritative judicial statement of the three-tier wage framework (minimum, fair, living). Individual employer hardship is irrelevant to minimum wage fixation.
Facts
- Employers in Kerala challenged minimum wage notifications under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948
- Argued that the rates fixed were too high and caused hardship to small employers
- Contended their inability to meet the burden should be considered
- Filed under Article 32 (writ petition)
Issues
- Whether the three concepts of minimum, fair, and living wage are distinct in law
- Whether employer's inability to pay is relevant in minimum wage fixation
Held
- Laid down the three-tier wage hierarchy:
- Minimum wage: bare subsistence; must be paid regardless of employer's capacity
- Fair wage: between minimum and living wage; industry's capacity to pay is relevant here
- Living wage: ultimate goal contemplated by Article 43; workman can provide for himself and family a measure of comfort
- "Hardship caused to individual employers or their inability to meet the burden has no relevance" in fixing minimum wages
Ratio Decidendi
The three-tier wage framework (minimum, fair, living) represents ascending levels of worker entitlement. Minimum wage is absolute and non-negotiable; employer hardship is irrelevant. Fair wage considers capacity to pay. Living wage is the constitutional aspiration under Article 43.
How to use it in an exam
- The authority for the three-tier wage distinction in Part A and Part B answers
- Always use in "Distinguish minimum wage, fair wage, and living wage" questions
- Key line: "In U. Unichoyi (1962), the Supreme Court held that minimum, fair, and living wages represent three distinct ascending tiers, and that employer hardship is irrelevant to minimum wage fixation."
Source
Source: AIR 1962 SC 12
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.