On April 29,  2019, Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana decided on certain issues under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (“Act”). In the said case, a writ petition was filed challenging a notification issued under section 5(2) of the Act which fixed/revised the minimum rates of wages in respect of different scheduled employments.

Supreme Court struck down a part of the notification. Some key observations of the Supreme Court are as follows:

• A close scrutiny of the definitions of the employer and the employee would bring the workmen employed through the contractors within the purview of the Act. There is no distinction made between a person employed by the principal employer and a person employed through a contractor. Any person who employs, whether directly or through any other person, one or more employees in a scheduled employment falls within the definition of an "employer".
• Categorization or classification by deeming workmen in one category to belong to another category is in direct contravention of the contract between the employer and the employee and is beyond the jurisdiction of the Government. 
• Inclusion of Security inspector/Security officer/Supervisor in the table "Minimum rates of wages in respect of all scheduled employment" in the notification is ultra vires the provisions of the Act. They do not fall within the definition of "employee' in Section 2(i) of the Act as they do not discharge any skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical work.
• Not all trainees can be included in the notification. Trainees who receive wages during the period of training would fall under the definition of "employee" as has been fairly admitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellants. It is the Appellant's case that such of those trainees who are not paid any wages cannot be included in the notification. We are in agreement with the said submission as only a person who is employed for "hire or reward" will fall under the definition of "employee".