IMPORTANT POINTS
As the mother Sanction based on the ‘agreed to labour budget’ nears exhaustion or is exhausted, the concerned State or Union Territory must obtain another Mother Sanction by providing the Central Government with the requisite documents as per the financial norms.
Submission that the Central Government cannot prepare an ‘agreed to labour budget’ or that the process of preparing an ‘agreed to labour budget’ is impermissible or that there is an informal cap on release of funds rejected.
A worker is entitled to payment of wages within a fortnight of the date on which the work was done, failing which the worker is entitled to the compensation as prescribed in paragraph 29 of the Schedule II of the Act. The burden of compliance is on the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations as well as the Central Government. One entity cannot pass on the burden to another and vice versa.

JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. In the record of proceedings of this Court dated 9th August, 2017 it is noted that learned counsel for the petitioner would like to highlight three issues pertaining to the implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (for short the Act) and the Scheme framed thereunder. These issues are:

1. Delay in payment of wages and compensation to the beneficiaries under the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder.

2. Reduction in person days and consequent reduction in allocation of funds from the projection made by the State Governments and the Union Territory Administrations.

3. Absence of social audits being conducted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Attorney General in detail in respect of these issues and have also gone through the various affidavits and written submissions.

3. The Act was enacted by Parliament with the objective, inter alia, of enhancing the livelihood security of poor households in rural areas by providing at least one hundred days guaranteed wage employment to every such household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work.

4. Section 3(1) of the Act provides that the State Government shall in rural areas (as notified by the Central Government) provide to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work not less than one hundred days of such work in a financial year in accordance with the Scheme made under the Act. Section 3(3) provides that the disbursement of daily wages shall be made on a weekly basis or in any case not later than a fortnight after such work has been done. Section 3 of the Act reads as follows:

“3. Guarantee of rural employment to households. - (1) Save as otherwise provided, the State Government shall, in such rural area in the State as may be notified by the Central Government, provide to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work not less than one hundred days of such work in a financial year in accordance with the Scheme made under this Act.

(2) Every person who has done the work given to him under the Scheme shall be entitled to receive wages at the wage rate for each day of work.

(3) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the disbursement of daily wages shall be made on a weekly basis or in any case not later than a fortnight after the date on which such work was done.

(4) The Central Government or the State Government may, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make provisions for securing work to every adult member of a household under a Scheme for any period beyond the period guaranteed under sub-section (1), as may be expedient.”

5. Section 4 of the Act provides that to give effect to the provisions of Section 3 thereof every State Government shall frame a Scheme providing not less than one hundred days of guaranteed employment in a financial year to every household in the rural areas covered under the Scheme and whose adult members, by application, volunteer to do unskilled manual work subject to the conditions laid down in the Act and in the Scheme.

6. In terms of Section 4 of the Act a working Scheme has been formulated and is in place and there is no dispute in this regard.

Reduction in person days through approved labour budget and allocation of funds

7. The grievance of the petitioner under this head is succinctly stated and understood by the Union of India in its written submissions of 14th March, 2018 as follows:

(a) “Approved Labour Budget” violates the essence of the Act which does not envisage any role for the Central or State Government in altering the labour budget in any form.

(b) The labour budget projections are arrived at through the process spelt out in Section 14(6) and paragraph 7 of Schedule I of the Act [There shall be a systematic, participatory planning exe