Bijay Cotton Mills v. State of Ajmer

Unichoyi tells you what the Minimum Wages Act is for. Bijay Cotton Mills tells you why it is constitutional. Compelling an employer to pay a rate he never agreed to is an interference with his freedom to carry on his trade or business, and the question is whether Article 19(1)(g) defeats section 3. The Court's answer is the model Part III–Part IV argument, and because the same argument recurs across the whole of labour law, this is the single most transferable case in Module I.

Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act — the provision empowering the appropriate Government to fix minimum rates of wages in scheduled employments — was challenged as unconstitutional on the footing that the restrictions it places on freedom of contract in the matter of wages infringe the employer's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g). Beyond the fact of that challenge and the ground of it, this course establishes no further facts, and none should be supplied.

The challenge failed and section 3 was upheld. The Court held that the restrictions, "though they interfere to some extent with freedom of trade or business guarantee under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, are not unreasonable and being imposed and in the interest of general public and with a view to carrying out one of the Directive Principles of the State Policy as embodied in Article 43 of the Constitution", are protected. The saving provision under which they are protected is Article 19(6).

The structure is a three-step test, and it is the step-by-step form that earns marks.

Step one: concede the interference. The Court did not pretend that minimum wage fixation leaves freedom of contract untouched. It accepted that the restrictions interfere to some extent with the right under Article 19(1)(g). A candidate who denies the interference has missed the argument; the right is engaged.

Step two: locate the saving clause. Article 19(1)(g) is not absolute. Article 19(6) permits reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public. The constitutional question is therefore not whether there is a restriction but whether it is reasonable and in the general interest.

Step three: use the Directive Principle to supply the public interest. Article 43 directs the State to secure to all workers a living wage and conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life. A restriction imposed to carry out that direction is by that very fact imposed in the interest of the general public, and is not unreasonable. The Directive Principle does not override the fundamental right; it supplies the content of the reasonableness standard inside it. That is the harmonisation technique, and it is reusable wherever protective labour legislation is attacked under Article 19(1)(g).

This is the authority for the question whether minimum wage fixation is constitutionally valid, and for any question that asks whether the Act's inroads on freedom of contract can stand. Run the three steps in order and name the three articles — 19(1)(g) engaged, 19(6) saving, 43 supplying the public interest. Pair it with Unichoyi: Unichoyi explains why the interference is needed, Bijay Cotton Mills explains why it is lawful. Together they make a complete answer on object and validity.

It disposes of any argument that a wage agreed between employer and employee is beyond legislative reach, and of the broader claim that the Act is ultra vires for trespassing on contractual freedom.

It does not decide whether any particular notified rate is excessive, nor does it give an employer a route to challenge a rate on the ground that he cannot pay it — that plea is already closed by Unichoyi. It says nothing about the procedure for fixation under section 5, about overtime under section 14, or about the Payment of Wages Act.

Two traps. The name is Bijay, not Bijoy — the misspelling circulates widely in notes for this paper. And the saving provision is Article 19(6); notes that refer to a "Clause (6) of Article 9" are simply wrong, and repeating the error signals that the case has not been read.

A caution on citation. No report reference for this decision is settled for this course. Write the name, the holding and the three articles; an omitted citation costs less than an invented one.