Sections 63 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Section 63 lets an employer charged with an offence ask the court to bring the actual offender before it. If the employer proves due diligence and that the other person acted without his knowledge, consent or connivance, the other person is convicted and the employer is discharged. Section 64 protects money deposited with, or due from, the Government under a contract from attachment, except for debts owed to employees on that contract. Employers who want to rely on section 63 should take legal dispute resolution advice before the charge is framed.
An employer charged with an offence can, on a complaint duly made by him, have the actual offender brought before the court at the hearing. If, after the offence is proved, the employer shows to the court's satisfaction that he used due diligence to enforce the Code and the other person offended without his knowledge, consent or connivance, the other person is convicted and the employer is discharged (s.63). A deposit with the appropriate Government to secure a contract, and amounts due under it, are not liable to attachment for the contractor's debts, except debts towards employees employed in the contract (s.64).
Section 63: naming the actual offender
The steps
- The employer is charged with an offence under the Code.
- The employer makes a complaint that another person is the actual offender.
- The employer is entitled to have that person "brought before the court at the time appointed for hearing the charge".
- After the commission of the offence has been proved, the employer must prove to the court's satisfaction: (a) that he used due diligence to enforce the execution of this Code; and (b) that the other person committed the offence without his knowledge, consent or connivance.
- If proved, "that other person shall be convicted of the offence and shall be liable to the like punishment as if he were the employer and the employer shall be discharged from any liability under this Code in respect of such offence".
Both limbs (a) and (b) must be shown. Note the order: the offence must first be proved, and only then does the employer prove his own limbs. The section does not decide the burden of proving the offence itself.
The proviso: evidence
"In seeking to prove, as aforesaid, the employer may be examined on oath, and the evidence of the employer or his witness, if any, shall be subject to cross-examination by or on behalf of the person whom the employer charges as the actual offender and by the prosecution."
So the employer may go into the witness box, but faces cross-examination by both the person named and the prosecution.
What section 63 does and does not do
| Question | What the text says |
|---|---|
| Who may use it? | An "employer charged with an offence" |
| Who can be named? | "Any other person whom he charges as the actual offender"; no designation is limited |
| Does the employer escape the dues? | The discharge is "from any liability under this Code in respect of such offence". The text speaks of liability for the offence; it does not say that the employee's claim for unpaid wages under section 45 is removed. Take advice on that point |
| Is there a time to apply? | The text says the employer is entitled to this "at the time appointed for hearing the charge"; the complaint is to be "duly made" |
Hypothetical example. A site supervisor, against the written instructions of the employer, withholds part of the wages of a casual team on his own. The employer, charged with the offence of underpayment under section 54, complains that the supervisor is the actual offender. The employer produces written instructions, compliance audits and a past warning to prove due diligence and no knowledge. If the court is satisfied after the offence is proved, the supervisor is convicted and punished like the employer would have been, and the employer is discharged. The facts are invented.
How section 63 differs from section 55
Section 55 deals with who in a company is also guilty and gives officers a defence of no knowledge or due diligence. Section 63 is the employer's own route to pass the liability to the actual offender. They can sit together: a company charged under section 55 may rely on section 63, though the text does not describe how the two interact for a company, and that is a point to settle on advice.
Section 64: protection against attachment
"Any amount deposited with the appropriate Government by an employer to secure the due performance of a contract with that Government and any other amount due to such employer from that Government in respect of such contract shall not be liable to attachment under any decree or order of any court in respect of any debt or liability incurred by the employer other than any debt or liability incurred by the employer towards any employee employed in connection with the contract aforesaid."
Reading it:
- Protected money: (i) a deposit with the appropriate Government to secure due performance of a contract with it, and (ii) any other amount due to the employer from that Government in respect of the contract.
- Protection against: attachment "under any decree or order of any court" for the employer's debts.
- Exception: debts or liabilities towards any employee employed in connection with the contract. Those can be attached against the deposit and amounts due.
The practical effect is for contractors working for Government: a bank or a trade creditor cannot attach the security deposit or the bills due from the Government for the contract, but unpaid wages of the contract's workers can be enforced against those amounts. Contractor concepts are covered in our article on contractor and contract labour. The section does not say who recovers or how; the usual claim and recovery route in section 45(3) is the natural one, but the text does not link them.
The word "appropriate Government" is used here, so the Government with which the contract is made must be the appropriate Government for the establishment. The text does not cover contracts with other Governments.
What the Central Rules add
The Code on Wages (Central) Rules, 2026 (G.S.R. 343(E), 8 May 2026) apply only where the Central Government is the appropriate Government. Where the State Government is the appropriate Government, the State's own wage rules apply. In the Rules text read for this article, no rule adds to sections 63 or 64.
Need help with a charge or a Government contract?
If an employer is charged for the act of a supervisor or a contractor, the evidence of due diligence has to be built before the hearing. For contractors on Government work, wage compliance protects the deposit. Our legal dispute resolution team can prepare the section 63 complaint and the supporting evidence.
Key takeaways
- An employer charged with an offence can have the actual offender brought before the court under section 63.
- The employer must prove due diligence and the other person's offence without his knowledge, consent or connivance, after the offence is proved.
- If proved, the other person is convicted and the employer is discharged; the employer can be examined on oath and cross-examined.
- Section 64 protects Government contract deposits and amounts due from attachment, except for debts to employees on the contract.
Read next
- Section 55: offences by companies
- Section 54: penalties for offences
- Sections 65 and 66: Central Government directions and saving
- Contract labour under the new labour codes
Disclaimer: Based on the Code on Wages, 2019 (as enacted) and, where noted, the Code on Wages (Central) Rules, 2026 (G.S.R. 343(E), 8 May 2026), as on 1 October 2026. The Code is in force from 21 November 2025; State Governments make their own rules for establishments where the State is the appropriate Government, and wage rates are notified separately. Verify the current position before acting.