Wage Code: Unions question composition of minimum wage advisory board

AITUC, CITU and NFITU have raised concerns over the exclusion of major central trade unions and the board's role in the formulation of minimum-wage policy

Trade unions have objected to the government’s constitution of the Central Advisory Board (CAB) under the Code on Wages, 2019, flagging the exclusion of major central trade unions and raising concerns over the board’s role in minimum-wage formulation.

 

The All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC), Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) and National Front of Indian Trade Unions (NFITU) have questioned the board's composition and sought wider representation for workers’ organisations. AITUC on Thursday sent a letter to Labour and Employment Minister Mansukh Mandaviya seeking withdrawal of the July 21 notification constituting the board and its reconstitution with representation from all major central trade unions.

 

 

In its letter, AITUC General Secretary Amarjeet Kaur said the board's composition was “non-inclusive” and contrary to the spirit of tripartism and representative democracy. The union said major central trade unions representing substantial sections of the workforce had been left out of the employee representation, according to a copy of the September 10 letter reviewed by Business Standard.

 

Section 42 of the Code on Wages provides for a Central Advisory Board comprising persons representing employers and an equal number representing employees, along with independent persons and representatives of state governments. The Central Advisory Board Rules, 2021, provide for 12 representatives each from the employer and employee sides.

 

The government notified the Central Advisory Board under the Code on Wages on July 21, with Labour and Employment Minister Mansukh Mandaviya as its chairperson. The employee side comprises representatives from Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, Hind Mazdoor Sabha, Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) and United Trade Union Congress, while the employer side includes representatives from Laghu Udyog Bharati, Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) and the All India Organisation of Employers (AIOE).

 

The board also includes senior officials from the Labour and Employment and MSME ministries and representatives of the labour departments of Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Assam.

 

AITUC said the employee representatives should reflect the “representative character, organisational reach and actual presence” of the central trade union movement. It argued that the statutory requirement could not be reduced to a formal exercise of government nomination and demanded “due and adequate representation” for AITUC and other major central trade unions.

 

“Major unions should be included. If this goes on, decision-making will become heavily one-sided and we will be forced to continue our strikes,” Deepak Jaiswal, national president of NFITU, told Business Standard.

 

The unions’ concerns also extend to the board’s role in minimum-wage policy. Under Section 42(3) of the Code on Wages, the CAB is required to advise the central government on the fixation and revision of minimum wages, among other matters.

 

Tapan Sen, national secretary of CITU, told Business Standard that minimum-wage formulation had historically been debated through tripartite forums and that the formula unanimously accepted at the 44th Indian Labour Conference had not been incorporated into the labour codes.

 

“By its own structure, this is an unjust thing. With the whole minimum wage formulation, there was a unanimous decision made in the ILC. We strongly believe that such an arbitrary method for deciding the minimum wage cannot be followed,” Sen said.

 

Sen said the Code on Wages had instead introduced the concept of a floor wage, which, he argued, could benefit employers if the floor was lower than the statutory minimum wage fixed by a state.

 

AITUC said decisions and recommendations on wages directly affect millions of workers, particularly those in low-paid and vulnerable employment, and called for the CAB to function as a genuine tripartite institution rather than a body whose composition is determined unilaterally by the government.