The Minimum Wage Bill on the Governor's Desk
The legislature of a large northern State passed the State Minimum Wages (Amendment) Act in March, raising the floor wage for unorganised workers from ₹10,500 to ₹14,000 a month. Parliament's Minimum Wages Act, 1948 already covers the same subject, and the notified central floor for the same scheduled employment is ₹11,200. The Bill reached the Governor's office three weeks before the financial year closed, and the Labour Secretary must brief the Governor in writing the same evening.
Two complications are on record. In 2019 the State passed a similar amendment without sending it to the President; it has been enforced since, and no central objection exists. This time the Chief Secretary argues the Bill must be reserved because it "overrides a central law", while the Advocate General says reservation is optional. The department also fears that if the Bill is reserved indefinitely, the 2019 Act will remain the only operative State floor and employers will challenge the 2024 wage in the High Court.
1. Which constitutional provision decides this conflict, and which law prevails if the Governor simply assents to the Bill?
Read the worked answer
Article 254 governs, because labour and wages are Concurrent List subjects. Under Article 254(1), if a State law is repugnant to an existing law of Parliament, the State law is void to the extent of the repugnancy unless it has been reserved for the President and has received assent. Assent by the Governor alone does not cure repugnancy. Two qualifications matter here: the repugnancy is only partial, so the State may still legislate on aspects the central Act does not cover (for instance, employments not scheduled centrally); and the test is whether Parliament intended to occupy the whole field. On these facts the ₹14,000 floor would fail against the ₹11,200 floor to the extent of the conflict, which is exactly why reservation is being considered. The Chief Secretary's premise is legally sounder than the Advocate General's, though "mandatory" is too strong.
2. Advise the Governor on the courses open, and test the claim that reservation is compulsory.
Read the worked answer
Article 200 gives four courses: assent, withhold assent, reserve for the President, or return a non-Money Bill with a message for reconsideration. The proviso makes reservation compulsory only where the Bill would derogate from the powers of the High Court. So reservation under Article 254(2) is a route to validity, not a standing duty; the Chief Secretary overstates it. Practical advice: withhold assent is exceptional and politically charged; returning the Bill with a message asking the House to reconsider the ₹14,000 figure keeps the option open; reserving it is the safest course because it is the only route that cures repugnancy. Under Article 201 the President may assent, withhold assent, or direct return, and the House must reconsider within six months. Note also that the Governor acts on ministerial advice, so the file must record the Council of Ministers' recommendation clearly.
3. If the President assents, what happens to the 2024 Act, the 2019 Act, and the anticipated challenge?
Read the worked answer
Presidential assent under Article 254(2) lets the 2024 Act prevail in that State over the central Act to the extent of the repugnancy, and it does so prospectively. The 2019 Act, never reserved, was void to the extent of its repugnancy under 254(1); after 2024 it is also superseded by the later State law on the same subject (implied repeal pro tanto), so the department's fear of two competing State floors disappears. Employers' challenge then shifts ground: it can no longer be a clean Article 254 plea, and would have to attack legislative competence or reasonableness under Articles 14 and 19, arguing that a 25 per cent jump over the central floor cripples small units. That is a policy and evidence question for the State to answer with data on unit sizes and wage bills, not a constitutional objection.