Shudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600 c12.121

c12.121

Manu’s provisions regulating the working conditions of the labourers are not so detailed as those of Kauṭilya. But, like Kauṭilya, he is severe towards a negligent workman. A hired workman who fails to perform his work according to the agreement out of pride, without being ill, shall be fined eight kṛṣṇalas, and no wages shall be paid to him.⁹ Nevertheless, the worker who fails to do his work on account of illness but completes it on his recovery shall be paid his wages for the long period of absence.¹ On the other hand, if he does not complete his work when he has recovered, he shall not be paid any wages even for the period he has worked.² This would suggest that workers were not penalised if they had to abandon work on account of illness, provided they undertook to finish the work on their recuperation or arranged to get it done by others. Manu does not make any further corresponding provision protecting the interests of the labourer as against the employer, such as we find in the *Arthaśāstra*. From a simile used by him it appears that the servant had to wait patiently for the payment of his wages.³