Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Sangeeta Devdas Salvi & Ors. (2026)
‘Honorarium’ Label Cannot Be Used to Deny Dignified Wages: Bombay High Court Rules Community Health Volunteers Are ‘Employees’ Under Minimum Wages Act, 1948
| Court: | High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) |
| Bench: | SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. |
| Petitions: | Writ Petition No. 1156 of 2021 (with WP ST/98222/2020, WP ST/863/2021, WP 1154/2021, WP 1307/2021, WP 1599/2021, WP 1158/2021, WP 14081/2022, WP 776/2023, WP 789/2023, WP 5921/2023) |
| Judgment Date: | 13 August 2026 |
Key Precedents & Cases Cited in Judgment
- State of Punjab and Ors. v. Jagjit Singh and Ors., (2017) 1 SCC 148
- Sabha Shanker Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer and Ors., (2019) 12 SCC 297
- State of Gujarat and Ors. v. Adarsh Gujarat Anganwadi Union and Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 3426
- Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi v. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1332
- Workmen represented by Secretary v. Reptakos Brett & Co. Ltd., (1992) 1 SCC 290
- Gobinddas & Anr. v. State of U.P., Writ A No. 10655 of 2024 (Allahabad High Court)
- Amarjeet Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2022 (4) ADJ 540 (LB)
- Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Mumbai Mahanagarpalika Karyalayeen Karmachari Sanghatana, WP No. 13695 of 2016
Important Judicial Observations
- Real Nature of Service vs. "Volunteer" Label: The Court held that workers who are mandated to work daily, complete 5 fixed hours of work, follow orders of municipal healthcare staff, and maintain attendance rolls are not volunteers in the ordinary sense.
- Scope of "Employee" under Minimum Wages Act: The statutory definition under Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act is significantly broader than "appointment" under municipal service rules or "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Employment for "hire or reward" is the sole requisite.
- "Honorarium" as Statutory Wages: Labeling monthly compensation as an "honorarium" does not strip it of its legal status as "wages" under Section 2(h) of the Act.
- Financial Burden No Ground for Exploitation: Civic bodies cannot evade paying minimum wages for vital health duties carried out continuously over decades on the ground of financial burden.
Full Judgment Extract & Sectional Record
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED BY: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
"SHE IS CALLED A ‘VOLUNTEER’. THE STATE DEPENDS ON HER LIKE A WORKER."
1) The above quote highlights the plight of Community Health Volunteers engaged by the country’s largest civic governing body, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, who are denied dignified wages. Community Health Volunteers act as a vital grassroot link between local communities and public health systems. They support maternal-child health, assist in disease and vector control, and help execute national and municipal health programs across Mumbai's wards. They are paid a fixed honorarium by the Municipal Corporation, and their fight is for payment of minimum wages guaranteed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
2) These Petitions are filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai challenging the common judgment and order dated 7 September 2020 passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai City allowing the Applications preferred by the Respondents and their Unions, and upholding the claims of Community Health Volunteers (CHVs) for minimum wages. The Authority has directed the Municipal Corporation to pay CHVs the difference in the minimum wages plus special allowance and the honorarium already paid to them.
3–5) The Petitioner is a Municipal Corporation established under the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. In 1988, the Corporation implemented the ‘India Population Project V’ with financial aid from the World Bank, establishing 176 ‘Health Posts’ to provide health services to slum dwellers in Mumbai. Local women were hired as part-time CHVs to execute various healthcare drives. Though World Bank assistance ended on 31 March 1996, the Corporation continued operating the Health Posts out of its own budget. The CHVs have been working continuously for fixed hours every day (currently 5 hours daily).
6–9) The CHVs’ Union previously raised Reference (IT) No. 39 of 2000 seeking permanent absorption. Although the Industrial Tribunal held in its Part-I Award dated 2 March 2002 that CHVs were ‘workmen’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it rejected the prayer for permanent absorption in its final Award dated 13 January 2004, while directing an increase in honorarium. Appeals regarding that dispute are currently pending before the Supreme Court. Subsequently, CHVs filed Applications under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 seeking minimum wage rates fixed via Government Notification dated 24 February 2015. The Authority allowed these applications on 7 September 2020, prompting MCGM to file the present Writ Petitions.
10–13) Learned counsel for MCGM argued that CHVs are purely voluntary project workers with no employer-employee relationship, that their status is sub-judice before the Supreme Court, and that rejection of their absorption claim bars minimum wage claims. Counsel for Respondents contended that minimum wage entitlement under statutory notifications is distinct from regular absorption, and that CHVs cannot be exploited with a meager honorarium while performing mandatory civic health duties.
Statutory Interpretation of "Employee" & "Wages"
18–19) The Court analyzed the fundamental legal distinction between Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948:
"Section 2(i) ‘employee’ means any person who is employed for hire or reward to do any work, skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical, in a scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed... Thus, definition of the term ‘employee’ under Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act appears to be substantially wider... What needs to be established is that the employment for hire or reward to do work is under the scheduled employment."
"20) In my view, the term ‘employed’ appearing under Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act is not to be confused with the concept of ‘appointment’. Ordinarily, appointments on the establishment of Municipal Corporation need to be made by following the established procedure... The word ‘employed’ in the definition under Section 2(i) has to be read in conjunction with the words ‘for hire or reward’. Therefore, every person who is paid remuneration for services rendered for Municipal Corporation would be covered by the expression ‘employee’ for the purpose of Minimum Wages Act."
"21) In my view, mere branding of wages paid to the CHVs as ‘honorarium’ would not deny them the status of ‘employees’ for the purpose of payment of minimum wages. If the nomenclature of reward paid for hire becomes the decisive factor, it would be easy for the employer to treat the wages as honorarium to escape the liability under the Minimum Wages Act."
"23) ...Respondents are not volunteers as understood in common parlance. They have to report for duties, perform duty for 5 hours, obey orders of Health Post doctors and nurses, and are paid fixed remuneration every month."
Constitutional Principles & Judicial Precedents Cited
25) The Court extensively quoted the Supreme Court landmark judgment in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Jagjit Singh and Ors., (2017) 1 SCC 148:
"58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Anyone, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage does not do so voluntarily... Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement..."
26–27) Reiterating Sabha Shanker Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer, (2019) 12 SCC 297, the Court observed that post-Jagjit Singh, it is not permissible for government bodies to exploit casual or temporary workers by paying wages at their whims. So long as workers continue in service, they are entitled to dignified wages.
32) The Court also cited the Gujarat High Court Bench decision in State of Gujarat v. Adarsh Gujarat Anganwadi Union, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 3426, which drew upon Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1332 and Workmen v. Reptakos Brett & Co. Ltd., (1992) 1 SCC 290, emphasizing that workers fulfilling essential community healthcare roles cannot be deprived of living wages consistent with Article 21.
33) Reference was further made to the Allahabad High Court decision in Gobinddas & Anr. v. State of U.P., Writ A 10655 of 2024 (citing Amarjeet Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 (4) ADJ 540), holding that statutory notifications under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 prevail over executive government orders paying lower fixed amounts.
Final Conclusion & Ruling
"37) Conspectus of the above discussion is that CHVs are utilized by the Municipal Corporation for carrying out vital activities of spreading health awareness amongst the community... Though branded as volunteers, CHVs almost work as workers of the Municipal Corporation. They do not merely ‘volunteer’ in real sense but actually discharge vital duties for the Municipal Corporation for reward... Therefore, for the limited purpose of payment of dignified wages, they will have to be treated as ‘employees’."
"38) I am therefore of the view that denial of minimum wages to CHVs is clearly against the legislative objective of the Minimum Wages Act. The Industrial Tribunal has rightly upheld entitlement of CHVs to minimum wages... financial burden alone cannot be a reason for denying dignified and living wages to CHVs who now form part of mainstream activities of the Municipal Corporation. Mere grant of minimum wages to CHVs does not make them entitled to any other benefits. By mere reason of grant of minimum wages, they cannot claim absorption/permanency in municipal service."
39–40) The Writ Petitions filed by MCGM were dismissed as being devoid of merits. The oral prayer made by MCGM counsel for stay of execution was rejected by the Court.