JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. This appeal arises out of order dated 23.05.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the appellant’s prayer for grant of minimum monthly wages as per Notification dated 24.05.2008 published on 26.05.2008 has been dismissed. 3. Quint essential facts necessary for determination of controversy involved in the present appeal are that the appellant was initially engaged vide order dated 15.03.1985 to work as Cleaner (Safai Karamchari) in the office of Land Settlement Officer, Alwar. In course of time, her services were terminated, which led to filing of a suit, which was decreed and the order of dismissal from service was set aside vide judgment and decree dated 29.04.1999 passed by the Civil Judge No. 1, Alwar in Civil Suit No. 10/91. The decree stated that the appellant is reinstated as part time employee/Safai Karamchari on a monthly wage of Rs. 364/- per month. 4. It appears that the appellant had prayed for regularisation by filing a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4068/2001. However, that writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 09.08.2007 as the claim for regularisation was not found tenable in law. 5. The appellant, however, had been parallelly claiming minimum wages for which purpose, she approached the Competent Authority under The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Competent Authority’). Vide order dated 29.09.2011, the Competent Authority, after holding a brief enquiry, allowing parties to make their statements and lead oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that, though, the appellant is not entitled to the amount as claimed by her, however, it was held that she is entitled to minimum wages of Rs. 1,300/- per month for four hours per day and on that basis, relief to limited extent was granted. 6. The appellant aggrieved by the order to the extent her claim was rejected, approached this Court by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by impugned order, giving rise to this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the appellant having been appointed on monthly wages to work as workman in the establishment of the respondent, is statutorily protected in the matter of payment of minimum wages, vide Notification dated 24.05.2008, which provides for minimum wage on day basis and monthly basis. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the appellant having been appointed on monthly wages to work as workman in the establishment of the respondent, is statutorily protected in the matter of payment of minimum wages, vide Notification dated 24.05.2008, which provides for minimum wage on day basis and monthly basis. His argument is that irrespective of whether the appellant was engaged to work for four hours and not the full hours of the day of work, in the absence of there being any prescription of minimum wages on hourly basis, the appellant is entitled to minimum wages on monthly basis. He would further submit that the learned Single Judge has wrongly interpreted provisions contained in Section 15 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1948’). It is also the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that even though, there was an enabling provision as contained in Section 3(3)(b) of the Act of 1948, the respondent authority did not chose to fix wages on hourly basis. Therefore, irrespective of the hours of work done by the appellant, she is entitled to wages on monthly basis as per the structure of minimum wages fixed vide Notification dated 24.05.2008. He would submit that in plethora of decisions, the object of enactment of minimum wages was considered. He relied upon the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of U. Unichoyi and Others vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1962 SC 12 , Workmen Represented by Secretary vs. Reptakos Brett. and Co. Ltd. (1992) 1 SCC 290 , Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation and Another vs. Tiffin’s Barytes Asbestos and Paints Ltd. and Another, (1985) 3 SCC 594 , Lanco Anpara Power Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2016) 10 SCC 329 , Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. and Others vs. State of Ajmer, AIR 1955 SC 33 and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sonu vs. MCD and Others, W.P. (C) No. 759 of 1998, decided on 17.03.2005. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would submit that, though, the appellant was initially appointed in the year 1985, a revised appointment order was issued on 16.04.1987 (filed along with application for taking additional documents on record) by which, she was appointed on fixed monthly wages of Rs. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would submit that, though, the appellant was initially appointed in the year 1985, a revised appointment order was issued on 16.04.1987 (filed along with application for taking additional documents on record) by which, she was appointed on fixed monthly wages of Rs. 125/- per month on the condition of working for four hours. 9. He would submit that in the enquiry held by the Minimum Wages Authority, there is an overwhelming evidence that the appellant used to work only for four hours, i.e. half of the working hours per day. In view of this clear factual position, the wages of the appellant were payable at the half of the wages, which is payable to a workman who works for whole day, i.e. for eight hours. He would argue that the payment of wages is based on working hours. The notification provided for monthly and daily wage rates on the premise that the person engaged has to work for eight hours. In such cases where engagement itself is for a short period of four hours, an appointment on part time basis, full wages could not be claimed under the law. He would further submit that interpretation of various provisions including provision contained in Section 15 of the Act of 1948 by the learned Single Judge is in accordance with law and, therefore, it does not warrant any interference. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 11. To begin with, the appointment order of the appellant annexed with the writ petition shows that the appellant was engaged as Safai Karamchari on 15.03.1985. This order neither speaks of any hours of working, nor any fixed wages. It appears that subsequently, a revised order of appointment was issued which has been placed on record along with an application for taking additional documents on record which shows that the appellant was engaged to work for four hours on a fixed monthly wages of Rs. 125/- per month. We would, therefore, presume that the appellant was engaged to work for four hours and was to be paid fixed monthly wages. 12. The question which arises for consideration is as to what would be the amount of minimum wages to which the appellant is entitled to payment under the law. 125/- per month. We would, therefore, presume that the appellant was engaged to work for four hours and was to be paid fixed monthly wages. 12. The question which arises for consideration is as to what would be the amount of minimum wages to which the appellant is entitled to payment under the law. The answer lies in the provisions contained under the Act of 1948 read with notification dated 24.05.2008 placed on record. 13. In one of its earlier decisions, in the case of U. Unichoyi and Others vs. State of Kerala (Supra), the object of enactment of the Act of 1948 was declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as below: “12. We have already seen what the Act purports to achieve is to prevent exploitation of labour and for that purpose authorises the appropriate Government to take steps to prescribe minimum rates of wages in the scheduled industries. In an under-developed country which faces the problem of unemployment on a very large scale it is not unlikely that labour may offer to work even on starvation wages. The policy of the Act is to prevent the employment of such sweated labour in the interest of general public and so in prescribing the minimum wage rates the capacity of the employer need not be considered. What is being prescribed is minimum wage rates which a welfare state assumes every employer must pay before he employs labour. This principle is not disputed [Vide: Crown Aluminium Works vs. Their Workmen, 1958 SCR 651 : AIR 1958 SC 30 ].” 14. The object of enactment of the Act of 1948 was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha and Another vs. State of Gujarat, (2020) 10 SCC 459 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in the case of Y.A. Mamarde and Nine Others and Ghanshyam and Others vs. Authority Under The Minimum Wages Act (Small Causes Court) Nagpur and Another, (1972) 2 SCC 108 in the context of a contemporary legislation, i.e. the Act of 1948. It was observed that as a minimum endeavour of just compensation for significant additional labour that is utilised by a worker, after having toiled in the ordinary course of the day, protective measures have been ensured under the legislative scheme of the Act of 1948, which was observed as below: “41. It was observed that as a minimum endeavour of just compensation for significant additional labour that is utilised by a worker, after having toiled in the ordinary course of the day, protective measures have been ensured under the legislative scheme of the Act of 1948, which was observed as below: “41. The provisions embodied in Chapter VI of the Factories Act reflect hard-won victories of masses of workers to ensure working conditions that uphold their dignity. In Y.A. Mamarde vs. Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, (1972) 2 SCC 108 (“Mamarde”) this Court in the context of a contemporary legislation, the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, interpreted the concept of overtime pay at double the rate of the ordinary wage, as a minimum endeavour of just compensation for the signification additional labour that is utilized by a worker, after having toiled in the ordinary course of the day. The Court, through a three judge Bench held: (SCC pp. 116-117, Para 13) “13. Let us first deal with this question. The Act [Minimum Wages Act] which was enacted in 1948 has its roots in the recommendation adopted by the International Labour Conference in 1928. The object of the Act as stated in the Preamble is to provide for fixing minimum rates of wages in certain employments and this seems to us to be clearly directed against exploitation of the ignorant, less organised and less privileged members of the society by the capitalist class. This anxiety on the part of the society for improving the general economic condition of some of its less favoured members appears to be in super-session of the old principle of absolute freedom of contract and the doctrine of laissez faire and in recognition of the new principles of social welfare and common good. Prior to our Constitution this principle was advocated by the movement for liberal employment in civilised countries and the Act which is a pre-Constitution measure was the offspring of that movement. Under our present Constitution the State is now expressly directed to endeavour to secure to all workers (whether agricultural, industrial or otherwise) not only bare physical subsistence but a living wage and conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure. Under our present Constitution the State is now expressly directed to endeavour to secure to all workers (whether agricultural, industrial or otherwise) not only bare physical subsistence but a living wage and conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure. This Directive Principle of State Policy being conducive to the general interest of the public and, therefore, to the healthy progress of the nation as a whole, merely lays down the foundation for appropriate social structure in which the labour will find its place of dignity, legitimately due to it in lieu of its contribution to the progress of national economic prosperity.......We are, therefore, clearly of the view that Rule 25 contemplates for overtime work double the rate of wages which the worker actually receives, including the casual requisites and other advantages mentioned in the Explanation. This rate, in our opinion, is intended to be the minimum rate for wages for overtime work. The extra strain on the health of the worker for doing overtime work may well have weighed with the rule-making authority to assure to the worker as minimum wages double the ordinary wage received by him so as to enable him to maintain proper standard of health and stamina. Nothing rational or convincing was said at the Bar while fixing the minimum wages for overtime work at double the rate of wages actually received by the workmen should be considered to be outside the purpose and object of the Act. Keeping in view the overall purpose and object of the Act and viewing it harmoniously with the general scheme of PART G industrial legislation in the country in the background of the Directive Principles contained in our Constitution the minimum rates of wages for overtime work need not as a matter of law be confined to double the minimum wages fixed but may justly be fixed at double the wages ordinarily received by the workmen as a fact.....” (Emphasis supplied) 15. The observations made in Para-13 of the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.A. Mamarde and Others and Ghanshyam and Others vs Authority Under The Minimum Wages Act (Small Causes Court) Nagpur and Another (Supra), are pertinent as it lays down the object of such protection of minimum wages to the workmen who otherwise belong to the disadvantaged class of the society. 16. 16. In yet another judgment in the case of Workmen Represented by Secretary Versus Reptakos Brett. and Co. Ltd. (Supra), their Lordships in the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the necessity of wage structure so as to secure minimum wages after considering the report and opinion of the Fair Wages Committee, Tripartite Committee of Indian Labour Conference held in New Delhi in 1957 and other relevant considerations and held in following manner: “8. Before the points are dealt with, we may have a fresh look into various concepts of wage structure in the industry. Broadly, the wage structure can be divided into three categories - the basic “minimum wage” which provides bare subsistence and is at poverty line level, a little above is the “fair wage” and finally the “living wage” which comes at a comfort level. It is not possible to demarcate these levels of wage structure with any precision. There are, however, well accepted norms which broadly distinguish one category of pay structure from another. The Fair Wages Committee, in its report published by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in 1949, defined the “living wage” as under: “the living wage should enable the male earner to provide for himself and his family not merely the bare essentials of food, clothing and shelter but a measure of frugal comfort including education for the children, protection against ill-health, requirements of essential social needs and a measure of insurance against the more important misfortunes including old age.” 9. The Committee’s view regarding “minimum wage was as under: “the minimum wage must provide not merely for the bare sustenance of life but for the preservation of the efficiency of the worker. For this purpose the minimum wage must also provide for some measure of education, medical requirements and amenities.” The Fair Wages Committee’s Report has been broadly approved by this Court in Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578 and Standard Vacuum Refining Co. of India vs. Its Workmen, AIR 1961 SC 895 . 10. The Tripartite Committee of the Indian Labour Conference held in New Delhi in 1957 declared the wage policy which was to be followed during the Second Five Year Plan. of India vs. Its Workmen, AIR 1961 SC 895 . 10. The Tripartite Committee of the Indian Labour Conference held in New Delhi in 1957 declared the wage policy which was to be followed during the Second Five Year Plan. The Committee accepted the following five norms for the fixation of ‘minimum wage’: “(i) In calculating the minimum wage, the standard working class family should be taken to consist of 3 consumption units for one earner; the earnings of women, children and adolescents should be disregarded. (ii) Minimum food requirement should be calculated on the basis of a net intake of calories, as recommended by Dr. Aykroyd for an average Indian adult of moderate activity. (iii) Clothing requirements should be estimated at per capita consumption of 18 yards per annum which would give for the average workers’ family of four, a total of 72 yards. (iv) In respect of housing, the rent corresponding to the minimum area provided for under Government’s Industrial Housing Scheme should be taken into consideration in fixing the minimum wage. (v) Fuel, lighting and other ‘miscellaneous’ items of expenditure should constitute 20 per cent of the total minimum wage.” 12. The concept of ‘minimum wage’ is no longer the same as it was in 1936. Even 1957 is way behind. A worker’s wage is no longer a contract between an employer and an employee. It has the force of collective bargaining under the labour laws. Each category of the wage structure has to be tested at the anvil of social justice which is the live-fibre of our society today. Keeping in view the socio-economic aspect of the wage structure, we are of the view that it is necessary to add the following additional component as a guide for fixing the minimum wage in the industry: “(vi) children education, medical requirement, minimum recreation including festivals/ceremonies and provision for old age, marriages etc. should further constitute 25 per cent of the total minimum wage.” 13. The wage structure which approximately answers the above six components is nothing more than a minimum wage at subsistence level. The employees are entitled to the minimum wage at all times and under all circumstances. An employer who cannot pay the minimum wage has no right to engage labour and no justification to run the industry. 14. A living wage has been promised to the workers under the constitution. The employees are entitled to the minimum wage at all times and under all circumstances. An employer who cannot pay the minimum wage has no right to engage labour and no justification to run the industry. 14. A living wage has been promised to the workers under the constitution. A ‘socialist’ framework to enable the working people a decent standard of life, has further been promised by the 42nd Amendment. The workers are hopefully looking forward to achieve the said ideal. The promises are pilling up but the day of fulfillment is nowhere in sight. Industrial wage-looked at as a whole - has not yet risen higher than the level of minimum wage.” 17. The Act of 1948 seeks to ensure that workers are not exploited and are paid minimum wage at the rate which may be provided by way of appropriate notification that may be issued by the Government from time to time. The State being a welfare State, is enjoined with a duty to fix minimum wages keeping in view various aspects which definitely include all those measures to be taken to ameliorate exploitation and provide sustenance amount to a worker. Enabling provision in that regard is contained in Section 3 of the Act of 1948. Sub-Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act of 1948 provides for fixation or revision of minimum rates of wages and it reads thus: “3(3)(b): minimum rates of wages may fixed by any one or more of the following wage-periods, namely: (i) by the hour (ii) by the day (iii) by the month (iv) by such other larger wage-period as may be prescribed, and where such rates are fixed by the day or by the month, the manner of calculating wages for a month or for a day, as the case may be, may be indicated: Provided that where any wage-periods have been fixed under section 4 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (4 of 1936), minimum wages shall be fixed in accordance therewith.” 18. The provision unmistakably empowers the State to prescribe minimum rates of wages, which may be fixed by any one or more of the wage periods specified therein. Thus, minimum rates of wages may be fixed by the hour or by the day or by the month or by such other larger period as may be prescribed. 19. The provision unmistakably empowers the State to prescribe minimum rates of wages, which may be fixed by any one or more of the wage periods specified therein. Thus, minimum rates of wages may be fixed by the hour or by the day or by the month or by such other larger period as may be prescribed. 19. The State in exercise of its powers under the enactment, particularly with reference to the provision contained in sub-clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act of 1948 promulgated notification dated 24.05.2008, published on 26.05.2008 (placed on record along with the writ petition). The said notification provided for minimum wages of unskilled workers engaged in various kinds of work including a Sweeper, Sanitary Jamadar and many other categories. The minimum wages on monthly basis has been fixed as Rs. 2,600/- per month whereas, minimum wages on day basis has been fixed as Rs. 100/- per day. That would mean that for the unskilled workers as stipulated in the notification, a minimum wages of Rs. 100/- on daily wage basis and minimum wages of Rs. 2,600/- on monthly basis, as the case may be, would be payable. It is pertinent to note here that while issuing the aforesaid notification, the authority did not fix any minimum wages on hourly basis though it was open for the authority to fix the minimum wages on hourly basis in view of the enabling provisions contained in Section 3(3)(b) of the Act of 1948. 20. It would, thus, be seen that the statutory obligation to pay minimum wages under the notification dated 24.05.2008 is either on monthly basis or on daily basis and there is nothing like payment of minimum wages on hourly basis. 21. The submission of learned counsel for the State that where the employee has been engaged as part time worker and works not for the full working hours in a day but only for limited working hours, like four hours in the present case, the wages either on monthly basis or on daily basis would be required to be reduced to half, is unacceptable to us. Payment of wages are governed and regulated by the provisions of the Act of 1948. A worker is entitled to wages under the scheme of the Act of 1948 and the notification fixing minimum wages. Payment of wages are governed and regulated by the provisions of the Act of 1948. A worker is entitled to wages under the scheme of the Act of 1948 and the notification fixing minimum wages. The scheme of the Act of 1948 for payment of minimum wages could be either on daily basis, monthly basis or hourly basis. If the payment of wages under the statutory scheme as is reflected from the notification is only on monthly or daily basis, we fail to understand that how the authority itself evolved a scheme of payment of minimum wages on hourly basis irrespective of the number of hours a worker may have worked in a day. Certainly, in a case where notification provided payment of minimum wages on hourly basis, it was open for the authority to fix minimum wages on the basis of the hours of work. However, in the absence of any such prescription in the notification, it is not open for any authority to devise its own scheme of minimum wages on the basis of working hours. This would amount to fixing wages under a scheme different than what has been provided under the Act of 1948 read with the notification issued thereunder fixing minimum wages. 22. The Legislature while enacting the Act of 1948 envisaged the situation where a worker engaged for a day may be required to work not for the entire working hours but for a period of less than that. The Legislature while enacting the Act of 1948 protected the interest of the workers in such a contingency by making special provision as contained in Section 15 of the Act of 1948, which is reproduced herein-below: “15. The Legislature while enacting the Act of 1948 protected the interest of the workers in such a contingency by making special provision as contained in Section 15 of the Act of 1948, which is reproduced herein-below: “15. Wages of worker who works for less than normal working day - If an employee whose minimum rate of wages has been fixed under this Act by the day works on any day on which he was employed for a period of less than the requisite number of hours constituting a normal working day, he shall, save as otherwise hereinafter provided, be entitled to receive wages in respect of work done by him on that date as if he had worked for a full normal working day: Provided, however, that he shall not be entitled to receive wages for a full normal working day: (i) in any case where his failure to work is caused by his unwillingness to work and not by the omission of the employer to provide him with work. (ii) in such other cases and circumstances as may be prescribed.” 23. A fair, rational and logical interpretation of the aforesaid provision, consistent with the object of the enactment, which we have discussed hereinabove, leads to irresistible conclusion that where the wages have been fixed by the day, even if the worker is engaged to work for hours lesser than the requisite number of hours constituting a normal working day, the worker would be entitled to receive wages in respect of the work done by him on that day as if he had worked on the full normal working day. 24. The provision in terms does not deal with a situation where the wages have been fixed on monthly basis. However, we are inclined to hold that where a person is engaged and is paid a minimum wages on monthly basis, the spirit of Section 15 of the Act of 1948, protects such worker also against any deduction of wages on the ground that his/her working hours constitute less than the working hours of a normal working day. However, we are inclined to hold that where a person is engaged and is paid a minimum wages on monthly basis, the spirit of Section 15 of the Act of 1948, protects such worker also against any deduction of wages on the ground that his/her working hours constitute less than the working hours of a normal working day. That would mean that even where a worker like the present case where the appellant is working as Safai Karamchari/Sweeper/Cleaner, the full wages payable as minimum wages for the month shall be payable and the wages are not liable to be deducted on the ground that the worker has worked for less hours than the normal hours of the working day. Such a scheme of the Act of 1948 is clear from the object of the legislation. A Single Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Sonu vs. MCD and Others (Supra) has also taken similar view. 25. Much emphasis has been laid on the terms of the appointment order dated 16.04.1987, which has been placed on record by the respondent-State. Irrespective of any terms which have been deployed in the order of engagement of employment, any construction of the order of employment or terms of contract which is opposed to the provisions of law has to be avoided. Indeed, a term of contract, inconsistent with law, is void. The order of appointment does not say that wages would be payable at the rate of half of the monthly wages payable under the notifications issued under the Act of 1948. Even if we assume that under the order, the appellant is required to work for about four to five hours per day, in the absence of there being any notification fixing minimum wages on hourly basis, the respondents are obliged under the law to pay wages at monthly basis fixed under the notification dated 24.05.2008. 26. The Competent Authority as also the learned Single Judge seem to have considered the claim of the appellant on the basis that the law permits the respondents to fix the wages on the basis of working hours which is contrary to the facts on record and not found in notification dated 24.05.2006. 27. In the result, we are unable to uphold the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the same is set aside. 27. In the result, we are unable to uphold the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the same is set aside. The appellant would be entitled to minimum wages @ Rs. 2,600/- per month fixed under notification dated 24.05.2008 and also entitled to rates of wages on monthly basis as and when revised from time to time. 28. It has been stated by learned Additional Advocate General that by interim order, the appellant is getting wages without any deduction. The authority shall work out the arrears of wages payable to the appellant as a consequence of the judgment passed by this Court and shall do well to ensure that the arrears of wages are paid to the appellant within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 29. A worker has been dragged to the Court for a valid claim, therefore, in order to do complete justice between the parties, we are inclined to impose costs of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousands), which shall be payable to the appellant at the time of payment of the arrears of the wages as per the directions of this Court.