The Code on Wages: Object, Application and Commencement

Compare that with the Industrial Relations Code and the difference is the whole of section 2.3 of the findings. Both Codes contain the same power to commence in pieces. The Industrial Relations Code was commenced by a single sentence covering the whole Act. This one was not.

The two instalments

Footnote 1 under section 1(3) of the consolidated text is where the answer is, and it is the cheapest place to check any of this.

First instalment, 18 December 2020, by S.O. 4604(E). Three items, all of them confined to setting up the Central Advisory Board and the floor-wage machinery ahead of the rest:

• section 42(1), (2), (3), (10) and (11), so far as they relate to the Central Advisory Board;
• section 67(2)(s) and (t), so far as they relate to the Central Advisory Board;
• section 69, so far as it relates to sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Minimum Wages Act 1948.

Second instalment, 21 November 2025, by S.O. 5322(E). Everything else: sections 1 to 41; section 42(4) to (9); sections 43 to 66; section 67(1), 67(2)(a) to (r) and (u) to (zc), and 67(3) to (5); section 68; and section 69 except the provisions already commenced at serial number 3 of S.O. 4604(E).

The trap, and how to avoid it

Read S.O. 5322(E) by itself and it appears to have holes. It gives "sections 1 to 41", then "sub-sections (4) to (9) of section 42", skipping 42(1) to (3). It gives section 67(2) but only "clauses (a) to (r) and (u) to (zc)", skipping (s) and (t). And it gives section 69 "except the provisions of the Code mentioned at serial number 3 of S.O. 4604(E)".

A writer working from that notification alone concludes two things, and both are wrong. That section 42(1) is not in force, so the Central Advisory Board has no statutory basis. And that part of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 survives.

The truth is the opposite. Everything S.O. 5322(E) appears to skip had already been commenced five years earlier, on 18 December 2020, when the Central Advisory Board and the floor-wage machinery were set up ahead of the rest of the Code. The November notification simply did not repeat what was already done.

So the position to state is: the whole of the Code on Wages is in force, and every one of the four Acts it repeals is gone.

The lesson is worth carrying beyond this subject. A commencement notification tells you what was commenced on that day. It does not tell you what is in force, because earlier notifications may have commenced other provisions. The consolidated text's footnote under section 1(3) collects them all, and that is the document to read.

Section 69: the repeal

69(1): the following are hereby repealed:

• the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (4 of 1936);
• the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (11 of 1948);
• the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (21 of 1965); and
• the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 (25 of 1976).

69(2): notwithstanding the repeal, anything done or any action taken under the repealed enactments, including any notification, nomination, appointment, order or direction made under them, or any amount of wages provided in any provision of such enactments for any purpose, is deemed to have been done or taken or provided for that purpose under the corresponding provisions of this Code, and is in force to the extent it is not contrary to the provisions of this Code, until repealed under the corresponding provisions of the Code or by a notification of the Central Government to that effect.

69(3): without prejudice to sub-section (2), section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 applies to the repeal.

Sub-section (2) has one limb the Industrial Relations Code's savings provision does not, and it matters practically: "or any amount of wages provided in any provision of such enactments for any purpose". So a minimum wage rate notified under the Minimum Wages Act 1948 continues in force, as if notified under this Code, until it is superseded. Without that, every rate in the country would have lapsed on 21 November 2025 and there would have been no minimum wage anywhere until fresh notifications issued.

The four Acts, and what each did, is worth a table, because the Code's four substantive Chapters map onto them.

The change that matters most: universality

The Minimum Wages Act 1948 applied minimum wages only to "scheduled employments", that is employments listed in its Schedule, which the appropriate Government could add to. A worker in an employment nobody had thought to schedule had no minimum wage at all, and large parts of the workforce were in exactly that position for decades.

The expression "scheduled employment" does not appear anywhere in the Code on Wages.

Section 5 is drafted accordingly: "No employer shall pay to any employee wages less than the minimum rate of wages notified by the appropriate Government." There is no qualifying category, no schedule, and no list.

And "employee" in section 2(k) is drawn as widely as it can be: any person, other than an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act 1961, employed on wages by an establishment to do any skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled, manual, operational, supervisory, managerial, administrative, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms are express or implied, including a person declared to be an employee by the appropriate Government, but excluding a member of the Armed Forces of the Union.

Notice that the definition includes managerial and administrative work, and carries no wage ceiling, unlike "worker" in section 2(zr) of the Industrial Relations Code. So the Code on Wages protects a far wider class than the Industrial Relations Code does.

Put those three together and the proposition is: every employee in every establishment in India is entitled to a minimum wage. That is the largest single change this Code makes, and it is the point to lead with in any question about its object.

The other three changes worth naming at the outset

The floor wage, section 9. The Central Government shall fix a floor wage taking into account the minimum living standards of a worker, and different floor wages may be fixed for different geographical areas. No State's minimum rate may fall below it, and a State that had already fixed a higher rate may not reduce it. There was no such national floor under the 1948 Act.

One definition of wages for all four subjects, section 2(y). Each of the four repealed Acts had its own definition, and the differences produced a great deal of litigation. The Code has one, with a fifty per cent. rule that is the subject of the next chapter.

Equal pay widened, section 3. The Equal Remuneration Act 1976 prohibited discrimination on the ground of sex. Section 3 prohibits discrimination on the ground of gender, and does so in respect of the same work or work of a similar nature.

A worked example

The facts. Meera works as a cook in a small commercial establishment in Wada. In 2019 nobody had scheduled her employment under the Minimum Wages Act 1948.

Her position before 21 November 2025. She had no statutory minimum wage, because the 1948 Act applied only to scheduled employments and hers was not one.

Her position now. Section 5 provides that no employer shall pay any employee wages less than the minimum rate notified by the appropriate Government, and she is an employee within section 2(k), being a person employed on wages by an establishment to do manual work for hire or reward. The Code contains no concept of scheduled employment. She is entitled to the minimum wage.

Her employer says the rate applicable to her was notified under the old Act and must have lapsed with it. It did not. Section 69(2) expressly saves "any amount of wages provided in any provision of such enactments for any purpose", deeming it provided under the corresponding provisions of this Code and keeping it in force so far as not contrary to the Code, until superseded.

He then says the Central Advisory Board has no legal existence because section 42(1) was not in the November 2025 notification. He has read S.O. 5322(E) alone. Section 42(1) to (3), so far as they relate to the Central Advisory Board, were commenced on 18 December 2020 by S.O. 4604(E). Footnote 1 under section 1(3) records both dates.

And he says part of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 survives, because section 69 was commenced "except" certain provisions. The exception refers to what S.O. 4604(E) had already commenced in 2020, namely section 69 so far as it related to sections 7, 8 and 9 of the 1948 Act. The whole of section 69 is now in force and all four Acts are repealed.

What this does NOT mean

It does not mean there is an Act called the Wages Code 2020. The Act is the Code on Wages, 2019.

It does not mean the Code came into force in 2019. Assent was 8 August 2019; the main commencement was 21 November 2025.

It does not mean parts of it are still un-commenced. The apparent gaps in S.O. 5322(E) were filled by S.O. 4604(E) five years earlier.

It does not mean the old minimum wage rates lapsed. Section 69(2) saves them expressly.

It does not mean minimum wages are confined to a list of employments. The Code contains no scheduled employments.

It does not mean the definition of employee matches the Industrial Relations Code's "worker". Section 2(k) here includes managerial and administrative work and carries no wage ceiling.

Limits, criticism and amendments

The five-year gap between the two instalments is the first criticism, and it produced exactly the confusion this chapter exists to clear. A Code whose Advisory Board provisions were live in 2020 and whose substantive Chapters were dead until 2025 is a difficult thing for an employer or a worker to follow, and the position could only be established by reading two notifications and a footnote.

Universality is the Code's great achievement and also its great administrative problem. Extending the minimum wage to every employment is worth little without inspection reaching every establishment, and the Code's enforcement machinery, the Inspector-cum-Facilitator in section 51, is a lighter-touch model than the inspectorate it replaces.

And almost everything is left to notification. The minimum rates, the floor wage, the wage periods, the manner of calculation and much else are all fixed by the appropriate Government or the Central Government rather than by the Code, so the statute's practical content depends on executive action.

Against that, the consolidation itself is a real gain. Four Acts with four definitions of wages, four sets of authorities and four sets of penalties have become one, and the single definition in section 2(y) removes a large body of litigation about which Act's definition applied to what.

Quick revision

• Act 29 of 2019. Assent 8 August 2019. Extends to the whole of India, section 1(2). MU calls it the "Wages Code 2020"; there is no such Act.
• Two instalments. 18 December 2020, S.O. 4604(E): section 42(1), (2), (3), (10), (11) and section 67(2)(s) and (t) so far as they relate to the Central Advisory Board, and section 69 so far as it relates to sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Minimum Wages Act 1948. 21 November 2025, S.O. 5322(E): everything else.
• S.O. 5322(E) read alone is misleading. Its apparent gaps were filled in 2020. Footnote 1 under section 1(3) has both dates. The whole Code is in force.
• Section 69(1) repeals four Acts: Payment of Wages 1936, Minimum Wages 1948, Payment of Bonus 1965, Equal Remuneration 1976. 69(2) saves things done, including any amount of wages provided, so old minimum wage rates continue. 69(3): section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 applies.
• No "scheduled employment" anywhere in the Code. Section 5 binds every employer as to every employee, and section 2(k) defines an employee to include managerial and administrative work with no wage ceiling.
• Three other headline changes: the floor wage, section 9; one definition of wages, section 2(y); and equal pay widened from sex to gender, section 3.

Test yourself

1. What is the correct name and citation of the Act MU calls the "Wages Code 2020"? The Code on Wages, 2019, Act 29 of 2019, which received the assent of the President on 8 August 2019. There is no Act called the Wages Code 2020; the syllabus is naming the reform package rather than giving a citation.

2. When did the Code come into force? In two instalments under section 1(3), which permits different dates for different provisions. On 18 December 2020, by notification S.O. 4604(E), sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (10) and (11) of section 42 and clauses (s) and (t) of section 67(2), so far as they relate to the Central Advisory Board, and section 69 so far as it relates to sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Minimum Wages Act 1948. On 21 November 2025, by notification S.O. 5322(E), everything else: sections 1 to 41, section 42(4) to (9), sections 43 to 66, section 67(1), 67(2)(a) to (r) and (u) to (zc) and 67(3) to (5), section 68, and section 69 except what had already been commenced.

3. Why is S.O. 5322(E) misleading if read on its own? Because it appears to leave gaps: it commences sections 1 to 41 and then only sub-sections (4) to (9) of section 42, skipping 42(1) to (3); it commences section 67(2) only as to clauses (a) to (r) and (u) to (zc), skipping (s) and (t); and it commences section 69 "except the provisions mentioned at serial number 3 of S.O. 4604(E)". A reader concludes that section 42(1) is not in force and that part of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 survives. Both conclusions are wrong: everything apparently skipped had already been commenced on 18 December 2020, and the November notification simply did not repeat it. Footnote 1 under section 1(3) of the consolidated text records both dates.

4. Which Acts does the Code repeal, and what happens to rates notified under them? Section 69(1) repeals the Payment of Wages Act 1936, the Minimum Wages Act 1948, the Payment of Bonus Act 1965 and the Equal Remuneration Act 1976. Section 69(2) provides that notwithstanding the repeal, anything done or action taken under those enactments, including any notification, nomination, appointment, order or direction, or any amount of wages provided in any provision of such enactments for any purpose, is deemed to have been done, taken or provided under the corresponding provisions of the Code and remains in force so far as not contrary to it, until repealed under the corresponding provisions or by a notification of the Central Government. So minimum wage rates notified under the 1948 Act continue in force. Section 69(3) applies section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897.

5. What is the most significant change the Code makes to the law of minimum wages? Universality. The Minimum Wages Act 1948 applied minimum rates only to "scheduled employments", that is employments listed in its Schedule, so a worker in an unscheduled employment had no statutory minimum wage at all. The expression appears nowhere in the Code. Section 5 provides simply that no employer shall pay any employee wages less than the minimum rate notified by the appropriate Government, and section 2(k) defines an employee very widely, covering skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled, manual, operational, supervisory, managerial, administrative, technical and clerical work, with no wage ceiling and excluding only apprentices and members of the Armed Forces. Every employee in every establishment is therefore entitled to a minimum wage.

6. Contrast "employee" in the Code on Wages with "worker" in the Industrial Relations Code. Section 2(k) of the Code on Wages defines an employee as any person, other than an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act 1961, employed on wages by an establishment to do skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled, manual, operational, supervisory, managerial, administrative, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, including a person declared to be an employee by the appropriate Government, and excluding only a member of the Armed Forces of the Union. Section 2(zr) of the Industrial Relations Code defines a worker more narrowly: it excludes a person employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, and a supervisor drawing wages above eighteen thousand rupees a month or the notified amount, as well as the armed forces and police and prison staff. The Code on Wages therefore protects a materially wider class, which is consistent with its subject: everybody who works for wages should be paid a lawful wage, whereas the industrial-relations protections exist to correct an inequality of bargaining power that a manager does not suffer in the same way.