Shudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600 c13.199

c13.199

The rules governing the relations between the employer and the employees indicate some improvement in the position of various categories of workers, who were recruited from the śūdra community. We have seen that in the case of non-performance of work Kauṭilya prescribes a fine of 12 paṇas, which comes to from five to twenty times the amount of wages prescribed by him.⁵ But most lawgivers of the Gupta period provide a fine of double the amount of wages, in case the worker does not perform his work after having taken his wages.⁶ Bṛhaspati, however, prescribes an additional fine according to the ability of the worker.⁷ Viṣṇu ordains that, if a worker does not complete his work, he should pay all his wages to the employer and a fine of 100 paṇas to the king.⁸ But this provision of his is counterbalanced by another, which lays down similar punishment for the employer if he dismisses the worker when the work is incomplete.¹ In this connection Bṛhaspati introduces certain provisions which are not found in the other law-books of the period. In one of them he just uncritically takes over the rule of Manu that, if the worker does not carry out his stipulated work out of pride although he is physically fit, he shall forfeit his wages and be subjected to a fine of eight kṛṣṇalas.² But this lawgiver adds that, in case the worker does not complete his work, he shall be deprived of his wages and proceeded against in a court of law.³ Like Viṣṇu, Bṛhaspati safeguards the interests of the workers by stating that, if the employer does not pay wages to a worker who has completed his work, he shall be awarded proper punishment by the king.⁴ Nārada adds that in such a case the employer shall be compelled to pay the wages with interest.⁵ This was obviously meant to enforce his general rule, which makes it obligatory on the master to pay regular wages, as agreed upon, to the servant hired by him.⁶ Reference has already been made to another provision of his, which states that, if the porter strikes work through the fault of the employer, he shall be rewarded for as much as has been done by him.⁷ It is likely that this rule may have been extended to other classes of workers.