ORDER : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. Letters Patent Appeals No. 1486 of 2017 and 1488 of 2017 arise out of a common oral judgment dated 06.07.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 250 of 2015 and Special Civil Application No. 15819 of 2014. In both these petitions, the prayer of the petitioners was for a direction to command the respondents to pay minimum wages as prevalent from time to time in the State. 2. The facts in both these petitions are not in dispute and are reproduced as under : “3. The short facts of SCA No.15819 of 2014 are that the respondent No.2 Board is a statutory body set up by the Government of Gujarat, Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department, and works for the development, regulation and control of the drinking water supply in the State. The respondent No.2 Board requires employees for execution of water supply schemes, for which the respondent No.2 engages contractors for the supply of labour. As per the case of the petitioners the petitioner Nos.2 to 25 were appointed on various posts such as Valvemen, Pumpmen, Linemen, Pump Operator and Operator by the contractors for the work of the respondent No.2. Some had put in more than seven years of service. At the time of filing of the petition, the respondent No.4 was the contractor engaged by the respondent No.2 Board. It is further case of the petitioners that the petitioner Nos.2 to 25 were being paid Rs.3,500/- per month, whereas the minimum wage as prevalent in the State, payable to the workers working in drilling operations and maintenance of tube wells in the year 2014 was approximately Rs.6,000/- per month. Thus, the respondents were making the petitioner Nos.2 to 25 worked for less than the minimum wages. According to the petitioners, the respondent No.2 Board being a model employer is required to see that the petitioners are not being exploited by the contractors and hence, the petition has been filed. XXX XXX XXX 7. So far as the SCA No.250 of 2015 is concerned, the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 were appointed as contract employees on the posts of Valveman and Operator. XXX XXX XXX 7. So far as the SCA No.250 of 2015 is concerned, the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 were appointed as contract employees on the posts of Valveman and Operator. According to these petitioners also, they were being paid Rs.3,000/- per month, whereas the minimum wages as prevalent in the State for similar work as done by the petitioners in the year 2014 was approximately Rs.6,000/- per month. Hence, the petition has been filed.” 2.1 In short, it was the case of the petitioners that though they were engaged on various posts as Valveman, Pumpmen etc by contractor, respondent No.4 herein, they were in fact working for the respondent Board and were being paid less than minimum wages. 2.2 The Board opposed the petitions, that it was the contractor who had engaged the petitioners and as per the terms of the contract it was the contractor who had to pay fair and reasonable wages. That no complaint was received for payment of less wages. 2.3 The Contractor, respondent No.4 also filed a reply resisting the petitions, stating that when the work was not continuous there was no need to pay minimum wages. That it was open for the petitioners to approach the statutory authority under the Minimum Wages Act. 2.4 The learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions of the respective parties opined that when there were no details available about the work and in absence of contractors being parties, it was difficult to ascertain whether the petitioners had worked for the Contractors. 2.5 Finding substance in the objection raised by the respondents, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petitions on the ground that the appellants – petitioners could not approach the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the alternative efficacious remedy under the statutes namely the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition Act) 1970 and Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 2.6 Aggrieved by being so ousted on the ground of alternative remedy, the appellants are before this Court. 3. Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Ms. Vidhi Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellants, submitted that non payment of minimum wages is a breach of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 23 of the Constitution of India. He relied on a decision in the case of Peoples’ Union for Democratic Rights and Ors. 3. Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Ms. Vidhi Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellants, submitted that non payment of minimum wages is a breach of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 23 of the Constitution of India. He relied on a decision in the case of Peoples’ Union for Democratic Rights and Ors. vs. Union of India and ors., reported in (1982) 3 SCC 235 . Non payment of minimum wages, in Mr. Mehta’s submission is a direct violation of rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel appearing for the Board submitted that payment of wages was the contractor’s liability. That the employer was not the Board but the contractor. There was never a complaint received that the petitioners – appellants were receiving less payments. 5. Mr. Nirav Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the Contractor submitted that there was complete dearth of details and the petition could not be entertained as disputed facts were involved. For violation of provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, a statutory remedy under the Act was provided. 6. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties, we are inclined to accept the submission of Shri Shalin Mehta that the appellants could not have been ousted from seeking a relief of payment of minimum wages under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights (supra)., has held as under: “14. Now the next question that arises for consideration is whether there is any breach of Article 23 when a person provides labour or service to the State or to any other person and is paid less than the minimum wage for it. It is obvious that ordinarily no one would willingly supply labour or service to another for less than the minimum wage, when he knows that under the law he is entitled to get minimum wage for the labour or service provided by him. It may therefore be legitimately presumed that when a person provides labour or service to another against receipt of remuneration which is less than the minimum wage, he is acting under the force of some compulsion which drives him to work though he is paid less than what he is entitled under law to receive. It may therefore be legitimately presumed that when a person provides labour or service to another against receipt of remuneration which is less than the minimum wage, he is acting under the force of some compulsion which drives him to work though he is paid less than what he is entitled under law to receive. What Article 23 prohibits is ‘forced labour’ that is labour or service which a person is forced to provide and ‘force’ which would make such labour or service ‘forced labour’ may arise in several ways. It may be physical force which may compel a person to provide labour or service to another or it may be force exerted through a legal provision such as a 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 ‘force’, and if labour or service is compelled as a result of such ‘force’, it would be ‘forced labour’. Where a person is suffering from hunger or starvation, when he has no resources at all to fight disease or to feed his wife and children or even to hide their nakedness, where utter grinding poverty has broken his back and reduced him to a state of helplessness and despair and where no other employment is available to alleviate the rigour of his poverty, he would have no choice but to accept any work that comes his way, even if the remuneration offered to him is less than the minimum wage. He would be in no position to bargain with the employer; he would have to accept what is offered to him. And in doing so he would be acting not as a free agent with a choice between alternatives but under the compulsion of economic circumstances and the labour or service provided by him would be clearly ‘forced labour’. He would be in no position to bargain with the employer; he would have to accept what is offered to him. And in doing so he would be acting not as a free agent with a choice between alternatives but under the compulsion of economic circumstances and the labour or service provided by him would be clearly ‘forced labour’. There is no reason why the word ‘forced’ should be read in a narrow and restricted manner so as to be confined only to physical or legal ‘force’ particularly when the national charter, its fundamental document has promised to build a new socialist republic where there will be socio-economic justice for all and everyone shall have the right to work, to education and to adequate means of livelihood. The Constitution-makers have given us one of the most remarkable documents in history for ushering in a new socio-economic order and the Constitution which they have forged for us has a social purpose and an economic mission and therefore every word or phrase in the Constitution must be interpreted in a manner which would advance the socio-economic objective of the Constitution. It is not unoften that in a capitalist society economic circumstances exert much greater pressure on an individual in driving him to a particular course of action than physical compulsion or force of legislative provision. The word ‘force’ must therefore be construed to include not only physical or legal force but also force arising from alternatives to a person in want and compels him to provide labour or minimum wage. Of course, if a person provides labour or service to another against receipt of the minimum wage, it would not be possible to say that the labour or service provided by him is ‘forced labour’ because he gets what he is entitled under law to receive. No inference can reasonably be drawn in such a case that he is forced to provide labour or service for the simple reason that he would be providing labour or service against receipt of what is lawfully payable to him just like any other person who is not under the force of any compulsion. No inference can reasonably be drawn in such a case that he is forced to provide labour or service for the simple reason that he would be providing labour or service against receipt of what is lawfully payable to him just like any other person who is not under the force of any compulsion. We are therefore of the view that where a person provides labour or service to another for remuneration which is less than the minimum wage, the labour or service provided by him clearly falls within the scope of the words ‘forced labour’ under Article 23. (Such a person would be entitled to come to the court for enforcement of his fundamental right under Article 23 by asking the court to direct payment of the minimum wage to him so that the labour or service provided by him ceases to be ‘forced labour’ and the breach of Article 23 is remedied. It is therefore clear that when the petitioners alleged that minimum wage was not paid to the workmen employed by the contractors, the complaint was really in effect and substance a complaint against violation of the fundamental right of the workmen under Article 23.” 6.1 Therefore, a person is entitled to come to the Court for enforcement of his fundamental right under Article 23 of the Constitution of India asking the Court to direct payment of minimum wages. In effect it was a complaint against violation of Article 23 of the Constitution of India. 6.2 In the other judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 244 of 2014 after referring to decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court specifically observed as under: “7. Reference could be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. B.N. Dongre and others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 817 , wherein the Supreme Court explained the importance of the wages in life of the working classes. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court held that wages are among the major factors in the economic and social life of the working classes and the workers and their families depend almost entirely on wages to provide themselves with the three basic requirements of food, clothing and shelter. The other necessities of life like children's education, medical expenses, etc., must also come out of the emoluments earned by the breadwinner. The other necessities of life like children's education, medical expenses, etc., must also come out of the emoluments earned by the breadwinner. Workers are therefore concerned with the purchasing power of the paypacket he receives for his toil. If the rise in the paypacket does not keep place with the rise in prices of essentials the purchasing power of the paypacket fails reducing the real wages leaving the workers and their families worse off. Therefore, if on account of inflation prices rise while the paypacket remains frozen, real wages will fall sharply. This is what happens in periods of inflation. In order to prevent such a fall in real wages different methods are adopted to provide for the rise in prices. In the costofliving sliding scale systems the basic wages are automatically adjusted to price changes shown by the costofliving index. In this way the purchasing power of worker's wages is maintained to the extent possible and necessary. However, leapfrogging must be avoided. If the prices of food, clothing and other necessities of life which even the lowest wage earner purchases month after month rise and the basic wage remains constant, real wage actually falls creating a problem for survival for the lowest wage earner and it is a common knowledge that this frequently happens during the period of inflation.” 7. Considering the fact that deprivation of minimum wages is a direct violation of a fundamental right enshrined under Article 23 of the Constitution of India, the learned Single Judge ought not to have ousted the petitioners from seeking such a relief in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and relegated them to avail of a statutory alternative remedy. This is so particularly when the learned Single Judge in para 17 of the judgment under challenge observed that a duty is cast upon the principal employer under Section 21 of the Contract Labour Abolition Act to ensure that wages are paid as prescribed. The learned Single Judge stopped short of issuing a direction in terms of the prayers made by the petitioners – appellants. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the common oral judgment dated 06.07.2017 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 250 of 2015 and Special Civil Application No. 15819 of 2014 are set aside. The appeals are allowed. The learned Single Judge stopped short of issuing a direction in terms of the prayers made by the petitioners – appellants. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the common oral judgment dated 06.07.2017 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 250 of 2015 and Special Civil Application No. 15819 of 2014 are set aside. The appeals are allowed. The prayers made by the appellants – original petitioners for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the appellants minimum wages as prevalent in the State to be paid right from their initial appointment is allowed. 8.1 The respondents are directed to pay the minimum wages as prevalent from time to time in the State, to the appellants, from their initial date of appointment within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The appeals are allowed accordingly with no orders as to costs. Civil Applications (For Stay) stands disposed of, accordingly.