Bombay HC: MCGM Must Pay Minimum Wages to Community Health Volunteers, “Honorarium” Label Cannot Deny Statutory Protection
Justice Sandeep Marne dismisses MCGM's challenge, holding that Community Health Volunteers engaged for over 38 years qualify as “employees” under the Minimum Wages Act regardless of their designation as volunteers.
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) failed in its bid to avoid paying minimum wages to its Community Health Volunteers (CHVs), after Justice Sandeep V. Marne, sitting singly at the Bombay High Court, dismissed a batch of eleven writ petitions on 13 August 2026. The petitions challenged a common order dated 7 September 2020 passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which had directed MCGM to pay CHVs the difference between the minimum wages fixed by a government notification dated 24 February 2015 and the honorarium actually paid. The court held that calling a payment “honorarium” does not insulate an employer from the Act's obligations, and that CHVs — engaged for part-time health work across Mumbai's 176 Health Posts for over three decades — are “employees” within Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
The Dispute Before the Court
MCGM implemented the India Population Project V in 1988 with World Bank funding, establishing 176 Health Posts across Mumbai to deliver family planning, maternal and child healthcare, vaccination, and disease-control services to slum communities. Each Health Post was staffed by a Medical Officer, a Public Health Nurse, Auxiliary Nurses, and about 25 part-time women community health workers — the CHVs. When World Bank funding ended on 31 March 1996, MCGM gave assurances that the programme would continue and absorbed its costs into its own budget. The scheme has run continuously since.
CHVs are hired from within local communities and paid a fixed amount each month. Their duty hours varied — some worked three hours a day, others four, and the respondents in these matters claimed five hours a day. MCGM characterised this payment as an “honorarium” rather than wages, a label it deployed to argue that the CHVs were volunteers outside the scope of the Minimum Wages Act.
After the Government of Maharashtra issued a notification on 24 February 2015 fixing minimum wage rates, CHVs and their union filed Application Nos. 1 to 12 of 2016 before the Authority under the Act, claiming the difference between those rates and what MCGM had actually paid. The Authority allowed all twelve applications by its order dated 7 September 2020, quantifying the amounts due in each case and directing recovery from MCGM. MCGM filed the present batch of writ petitions against that order.
MCGM's Arguments
Counsel for MCGM advanced several grounds. The primary contention was that CHVs are not employed by MCGM in any manner; there is no employer-employee relationship, and therefore no obligation to pay minimum wages arises. CHVs do not fit the definition of “employee” under Section 2(i) of the Act because no formal recruitment process is followed and their services are taken on an as-needed basis.
MCGM also argued that the question of CHVs' status had already been litigated. The Industrial Tribunal, by a Part-I Award dated 2 March 2002 in Reference (IT) No. 39 of 2000, held CHVs to be “workmen” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. MCGM challenged that finding; this Court upheld it on 4 January 2017; and MCGM's Special Leave Petition — Civil Appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 9660 of 2017 — remains pending before the Supreme Court, with the 4 January 2017 judgment stayed by the Supreme Court's order dated 13 April 2017. MCGM argued that the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act could not re-examine the status of CHVs while the same issue was sub judice before the Supreme Court.
Further, MCGM contended that CHVs' prayer for absorption in municipal service had already been rejected by the Industrial Tribunal's final Award dated 13 January 2004, and that the minimum-wages claim was an indirect attempt to reintroduce that rejected demand. It was also argued that the applications were barred by limitation, that issues were not properly framed, and that none of the individual CHVs had entered the witness box — only an advocate had given evidence on their behalf.
The Statutory Definitions and Why They Differ
Justice Marne noted a critical distinction that MCGM had glossed over. The term “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the term “employee” under Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act are not the same. The definition of “employee” under the Minimum Wages Act is substantially wider: it covers any person employed for hire or reward to do any work, skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical, in a scheduled employment for which minimum rates have been fixed. There is no dispute that MCGM's establishment is a scheduled employment within the meaning of the Act.
The court held that the word “employed” in Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act must not be conflated with the concept of “appointment” to a post in the establishment. Regular appointments to MCGM's cadre require compliance with established rules and procedures. But the word “employed” in the Act must be read with the words “for hire or reward”. Any person who is paid remuneration for services rendered — whether permanent, temporary, casual, ad hoc, work-charged, contractual, or badli — is covered. The common thread is employment for hire or reward, not the nature of the appointment.
Turning to the honorarium question, the court was direct: whether the payment is called wages or honorarium cannot be the decisive factor, because that would allow employers to strip workers of statutory protection simply by choosing a different label. The definition of “wages” under Section 2(h) of the Minimum Wages Act covers all remuneration capable of being expressed in money that is payable in respect of employment. The honorarium paid to CHVs falls squarely within that definition.
The “Volunteer” Label and the Reality of CHV Engagement
Justice Marne examined the factual character of CHV engagement. The ordinarily understood meaning of a volunteer, he observed, is a person who offers to do something without being forced or paid. CHVs are paid a fixed sum every month. They are required to report for duty. They work for five hours a day. They take orders from Health Post doctors and nurses. Their muster rolls are maintained. They are supervised. This is not voluntary work in any ordinary sense.
The scheme under which they are engaged has continued for 38 years. Many CHVs have worked until they crossed the age of retirement. Approximately 3,000 CHVs serve MCGM across Mumbai's wards at present, acting as a bridge between Health Post staff and slum communities. The court found that their engagement is not a casual arrangement to meet a temporary need; it has become a mainstream function of the corporation's health delivery system.
The court also found the pendency of MCGM's appeal before the Supreme Court on the “workman” status question to be irrelevant to the minimum-wages claim. Whether CHVs are workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act has no bearing on whether they are employees under the Minimum Wages Act — the definitions are different, the fora are different, and the relief sought is different. The demand for absorption in municipal service is wholly distinct from a claim for minimum wages; the rejection of the absorption demand cannot be used to foreclose the wages claim.
Precedent on Dignified Wages for Temporary and Casual Workers
The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Jagjit Singh and Ors., (2017) 1 SCC 148, which established that governments and their instrumentalities cannot pay casual and temporary workers wages below the minimum of the pay scales applicable to regular employees performing the same duties. The principle was reiterated in Sabha Shanker Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer and Ors., (2019) 12 SCC 297. Justice Marne acknowledged that the strict ratio of Jagjit Singh — pay parity with regular employees performing identical duties — may not directly apply to CHVs since their duties differ from those of permanent municipal staff. However, he drew on the spirit of the judgment: once a person is hired for reward by a government body, that body must pay dignified wages and cannot exploit the worker.
The court also noted the Gujarat High Court's ruling in State of Gujarat and Ors. v. Adarsh Gujarat Anganwadi Union and Ors., 2025 SCC Online Guj 3426, which held that Anganwadi workers are entitled to at least a “living wage” above the minimum and fair wage, and that denial of living wages to such workers violates Article 21 of the Constitution. The Allahabad High Court's decision in Gobinddas & Anr. v. State of UP (Writ A 10655 of 2024) was also cited, where part-time safaikarmis paid a fixed honorarium of Rs. 1,200 per month were held entitled to statutory minimum wages, with the court holding that a government order fixing remuneration must yield to a statutory notification under the Minimum Wages Act.
An internal precedent from this court also bears mention. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Mumbai Mahanagarpalika Karyalayeen Karmachari Sanghatana (Writ Petition No. 13695 of 2016, decided on 14 July 2026), the court upheld an Industrial Court direction that Welfare Centre Volunteers were eligible to sit for clerk appointments, and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 each to five volunteers who had been wrongly excluded from a 2011 selection process. Justice Marne made clear that this judgment was not being invoked to hold CHVs to be direct employees of MCGM for purposes of regularisation, but to reinforce that even persons called volunteers by MCGM may be entitled to enforceable rights.
MCGM's Conduct Towards Contractor Workers Contrasted
Justice Marne drew a pointed contrast. When MCGM awards contracts — for solid waste handling, for instance — it inserts conditions in every tender requiring the contractor to pay minimum wages to its workers. Additionally, under Section 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, MCGM is liable as principal employer to ensure minimum wages are paid even to a contractor's workers, with whom MCGM has no direct relationship at all. The court found it “unfathomable” that MCGM ensures minimum wages for workers hired by its contractors but refuses the same to CHVs whom it directly remunerates every month.
The court also addressed MCGM's submission that CHVs currently receive Rs. 14,000 per month, which it characterised as not a pittance. Justice Marne accepted that MCGM cannot strictly be accused of paying meagre wages. But the law imposes a minimum wages floor by statute, and financial difficulty alone cannot be a basis for MCGM to fall below that floor. Granting minimum wages to CHVs does not make them permanent employees, does not entitle them to increments or promotions, and does not give them a right of absorption — it does no more than comply with the Minimum Wages Act.
The court was also clear that its ruling does not extend by implication to ASHA workers engaged under the National Health Mission or Anganwadi Sevikas under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme. Those categories were expressly kept outside the scope of the present judgment.
Order
Justice Marne dismissed all eleven writ petitions as devoid of merit. No order as to costs was made. The Authority's common order dated 7 September 2020 — directing MCGM to pay each batch of CHVs the quantified difference between the statutory minimum wages and the honorarium actually paid — stands. CHVs are entitled to minimum wages corresponding to the number of hours of duty performed by them.
After pronouncement, counsel for MCGM sought a six-week stay of the judgment. The prayer was rejected. The court noted that MCGM had not obtained any stay on the Authority's 7 September 2020 order during the entire pendency of the writ petitions, and saw no ground to stay the High Court's judgment now.