WAGES FOR PRISONERS THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER VS HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT [CIVIL APPEAL NO 308 OF 1986, SC]

 

WAGES FOR PRISONERS

THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER

VS

HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

[CIVIL APPEAL NO 308 OF 1986, SC]

The following is the case summary of the case State of Gujarat and Another v. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in which various appeals were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by respective state governments against the decisions passed by various high courts regarding the concept of wages where the court laid down that it must be treated with the provisions of

Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and even dismissed the request made by the state government to deduct the cost of providing the food and clothes from the wages of the prisoners. The case explains the difference between the nature of work that the prisoner is entitled to do if he is in an undertrial or if he is convicted. The case also clarifies that whether Article 23 and Article 24 of the Constitution are invoked when the jail authorities impose hard labour on the prisoners or not. It further, talks about the ineffectiveness of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where many persons who are sentenced to long-term imprisonment do not pay the compensation and instead choose to continue in jail in default thereof. It is only when fine alone is the sentence that the convicts invariably choose to remit the fine. But those are cases in which the harm inflicted on the victims would have been far less serious. Thus, the restorative and reparative theories are not translated into real benefits to the victims.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Hon’ble High court of Kerela in its decision on the matter of prison reform enhancement of wages of prisoners suggested to give wages to the prisoners as per the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and also rejected the request of deducting the cost of food and clothes from the wages that are provided to the prisoners. The court directed the State Government to design a fair wage structure for the prisons who were employed as labour, and in the meanwhile were asked to pay them Rs. 8 per day until the Government is able to decide the appropriate wages to be paid to such prisoners. Meanwhile, A Singh Judge of Rajasthan High Court suggested that the State Government shall appoint a Commission to go into the entire wage Structure for the convicted prisoners. The Hon’ble court also directed the State to pay to the prisoners at the rates tentatively fixed by the learned Judge.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, in a case, directed the State Government to undertake comprehensive jail reforms and appoint a high-powered committee within a year to look into the various aspects including payment of reasonable

minimum wages to the prisoners.  Afterward, the Gujarat High Court adopted the same stand as the Division Bench of Kerala

in the above-mentioned case law. The judgment was rendered by a Division Bench headed by P Subramaniam Poti, CJ, and the reasons averted in the decision of the Kerela High Court were reiterated.

In this case, various appeals by the respective state governments and two writ petitions by the prisoners were filed challenging the judgments rendered by respective high courts which in principle upheld the contention that denial of wages at such rates would fringe on infringement of the constitutional protection against the execution of forced labour and enhance the wages of the prisoners. various appeals were filed by various state governments before the Supreme Court for challenging the judgment rendered by the respective high courts so the court heard Mr. Rajeev Dhawan who appeared from the side of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) which feverous the principle that prisoners should be paid wages at the rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages law. The Hon’ble Court also heard Mr. Kapil Sibal as the Amicus Curiae and Mr. Soli J. Sorabji who discussed the same principles as was discussed by the counsel for NHRC.

ISSUES

I. Whether the prisoners, who are required to do labour as part of their punishment, should necessarily be paid wages for such work at the rates prescribed under Minimum Wages law. whether any deduction should be made from the earnings of a prison related to the cost of clothes and essentials.

II. Whether the victim is entitled to any kind of compensation or relief from the earning of the accused in prison or not?

III. Whether compulsory labour can be considered can be justified by testing it on the touchstone of the public purpose?

Plea of the Appellant

The appellant, in this case, contended the decision given by various high courts and was of the view that prisoners should be paid wages and mentioned that the present rates of wages paid

to them were too meagre and hence they must be enhanced. The State of Kerala (Appellant) in the appeal expressed some objection to paying the prisoners at the rates fixed as per Minimum Wages laws. But during arguments, the State submitted that the Government is willing to pay the prisoners wages at the said rates after deducting a certain percentage there from which represents the amount needed for the food and clothes supplied to the prisoners.

Plea of the Respondent

The respondents in its submissions submitted that it is the obligation of the state government to provide food and clothes to the prisoners as it is the inherent obligation of the State on

account of the very fact of their internment in prisons. Further, the high court in its judgment mentioned the under trials and the liability of the state government to feed and provide clothes to them.

5. LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE

Constitution of India

Article 23

This respective case was presented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court where one of the main issues that were found out to be was whether the imposition of the hard labor on the prisoners

who are convicted in prison invokes Article 23 or not. while discussing this issue the Court referred to the case of Democratic Rights v. Union of India where the court observed that forced labour may arise in several ways, it may be physical force, it may be the force exerted through a legal provision such as the provision for imprisonment or fine in case the employee fails to provide labour or service or it may even be compulsion arising from hunger and poverty, want and destitution. Any factor which deprives a person of a choice of alternatives and compels him to adopt one particular course of action may properly be regarded as a force. The Supreme Court from the judgment made the observation that where a person provided labour or service to another or remuneration which is less than minimum wage, the

labour or service provided by him clearly falls within the scope and ambit of the words "forced labour" under Article 23.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further addressed the issue of whether compulsory labour is justified by testing on the touchstone of the ‘public purpose’ the court observed that hard

labor imposed on the proved offenders would have a deterrent effect against others from committing crimes and thus society would, to that extent, be protected from perpetration of criminal offenses by others. So, the court concluded that it is lawful to employ the prisoners sentenced to rigorous imprisonment to do hard labour whether he consents to do it or not and it is open to the jail officials to permit other prisoners also to do any work which they choose to do provide such prisoners make a request for that purpose.

The nature of punishments and hard labour

The Hon’ble Court mentioned the two principal categories of the prisoners i.e

 (1) under-trial prisoners and

 (2) convicted prisoners (Besides them there are those detained as a preventive measure, and those undergoing detention for default of payment of fine) and mentioned that in the first category cannot be required to do any labour while they remain in jail, but they far outnumber all the remaining categories put together. As per Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code, the term “punishments” has been further subdivided into two subcategories as "rigorous" and "simple". Rigorous imprisonment is imprisonment where hard labour is imposed on the Convicts.

Section 357 of CrPC and the victim compensation

Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides some reliefs to the victims as the court is empowered to direct payment of compensation to any person for any loss or injury caused by the offense. But in practice, the said provision has not proved to be of much effectiveness. Many persons who are sentenced to long-term imprisonment do not pay the compensation and instead, they choose to continue in jail in default thereof. It is only when

fine alone is the sentence that the convicts invariably choose to remit the fine. But those are cases in which the harm inflicted on the victims would have been far less serious. Thus, the restorative and reparative theories are not translated into real benefits to the victims.

Although, it is constructive thinking for the State to make appropriate law for diverting some portion of the income earned by the prisoner when he is in jail to be paid to deserving victims. In the absence of any law for that purpose, the Hon’ble Court prevented from issuing a direction to set apart any portion of the prisoner's earned wages for payment to the victims because of the interdict contained in Article 300A the Constitution.

JUDGEMENT

The judgment is based on three angles that were considered by the Hon’ble Court where it mentioned that it is the obligation of the state government to bear the expenses needed for providing food, clothes, or the other amenities that are required by the prisoners but it needs to be looked with other sides as well which are as follows-

1. The first angle was if wages at the rates fixed under MW Act are paid to a prisoner without making any such deduction its net effect would be that he gets wages apparently more than the emoluments of a workman who does the same type of work outside the jail. This is because the latter has to meet his

expenses for food and clothes from the minimum wages paid to him.

2. The second angle is, the Government which has to pay wages to the prisoner has the additional liability to supply clothes and food to him because the government has the duty to keep a convicted person in prison during such a term as the Court sentences him to imprisonment. It is taxpayer's money which

the Government is expending for keeping the prisoners inside the jail by providing him food and clothes and other amenities.

3. The third angle describes the Minimum Wages Act permits the employer to make deductions of certain kinds from the wages of an employed person. Section 12 of the Act permits him to make such deductions as may be authorized and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by rules.

Minimum Wages (Central) Rules contain the items of such deductions which are permissible. Among such items the following two are pertinent:

(1) deductions for house accommodation supplied by the employer

(2) Deductions for such amenities and services supplied by the employer as the government may authorize. This deduction of the cost of clothes and food supplied to an employee from his wages is not inconsistent with legislative policy.

Dicta

The Hon’ble Court in the entire judgment referred the various points-

It is lawful to employ the prisoners sentenced to rigorous imprisonment to do hard labour whether he consents to do it or not.

It is open to the jail officials to permit other prisoners also to do any work which they choose to do provide such prisoners make a request for that purpose.

It is imperative that the prisoner should be paid equitable wages for the work done by them.

In order to determine the quantum of equitable wages payable to prisoners, the State concerned shall constitute a wage fixation body for making recommendations. We direct each State to do so as early as possible.

Until the State Government takes any decision on such recommendations every prisoner must be paid wages for the work done by him at such rates or revised rates as the Government

concerned fixes in the light of the observations made above. For this purpose, we direct all the State Government to fix the rate of such interim wages within six weeks from today and report to this Court of compliance with this direction.

We recommend to the State concerned to make law for setting apart a portion of the wages earned by the prisoners to be paid as compensation to deserving victims of the offense the commission of which entailed the sentence of imprisonment to the prisoner, either directly or through a common fund to be created for this purpose or in any other feasible mode.

Dissent

The Hon’ble Court agreed to the contentions of the appellant (State government) and allowed them to deduct the expenses incurred for food and clothes of the prisoners from the minimum

wages rates is a reasonable request. The court further also directed the state government to make appropriate law for diverting some portion of the income earned by the prisoner when he is in jail to be paid to deserving victims. In the absence of any law for that purpose, we are prevented from issuing a direction to set apart any portion of the prisoner's earned wages for payment to the victims because of the interdict contained in Article 300Aof the Constitution.