HC notice to Centre, Punjab on parity in wages for fair price shop owners with PUNGRAIN salesmen

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a notice of motion to the Union of India and State of Punjab on a petition seeking parity in wages between fair price shop owners operating under the National Food Security Act and salesmen employed by the Punjab State Grains Procurement Corporation Ltd. (PUNGRAIN).

Justice Suvir Sehgal passed the order after hearing the plea filed by the NFSA Depot Holders Welfare Association, Sangrur. The petitioner-association was seeking directions for treating fair price shop owners on a par with PUNGRAIN salesmen for the purpose of monthly wages and to ensure that their remuneration was not less than the minimum wages prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act.

The petitioner, through counsel Vijay K Jindal and Vipul Jindal, contended that the Punjab Government failed to fix the “fair price shop owner’s margin” and to periodically review it to ensure sustained viability of their operations. This was despite a statutory mandate under Regulation 9 of the Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order.

The omission, it added, had rendered their functioning economically unviable, with most shop owners earning less than Rs 4,000 a month — an amount that barely covers the rent of the premises, leaving them with nothing as income.

The petitioner submitted that this amounted to forced labour within the meaning of Article 23 of the Constitution, as fair price shop owners were compelled to continue working under conditions that did not yield subsistence wages. It was further argued that the State’s inaction violated Articles 14, 19, 21, and 23 of the Constitution, besides being arbitrary and ultra vires of the Control Order provisions.

The petition also relied heavily on the report of the Justice DP Wadhwa Committee accepted by the Supreme Court in the People’s Union for Civil Liberties case, which recommended that fair price shop owners be treated on a par with salesmen working in state procurement corporations such as PUNGRAIN. The petitioner asserted that these recommendations, having been accepted by the Centre and the states, were binding for fixation of margins.

Citing Article 43 of the Constitution, the association argued that the right to a living wage included the right to wages sufficient not only for food, clothing, and shelter, but also for basic comforts, education, and social security. It also invoked Article 51A, contending that denial of fair wages to shop owners amounted to victimisation inconsistent with the spirit of humanism and compassion mandated as a fundamental duty.

The plea added that the State was required to ensure a reasonable number of ration cards per fair price shop. However, the Punjab Government’s decision to allot 200 ration cards to each shop, without reviewing the margin, made the trade unviable. According to the petitioner, the average monthly margin per shop worked out to only Rs 3,483.90 to Rs 4,113.90 — far below the minimum wages payable to even unskilled labour.