Hussainbhai, Calicut Vs Alath Factory Thzilali Union, Kozhikode And Others

FACTS:

In this case, workmen were hired by a company through an individual contractor under a contractual basis. They were working in a Rope manufacturing company. The petitioner was the owner of the manufacturing industry. After a few months 29 of the workmen were removed from the factory. When they approached the petitioner regarding this, they were told that they were never the employees of the factory but were only the workmen of the contractor. This became a labor law dispute and these kind of cases were recurring in the courts regarding the employment of workers by the middlemen i.e. the contractors. And these contractors usually don’t fulfill their responsibility to the workmen

ISSUES:

Under section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

PETITIONER CONTENTION:

The petitioner contended that all the workmen were hired in a contractual basis and they were not the employees of the factory. The petitioner mentioned that this always has been the case and the workmen were always hired through the middle men who were individual contractors and according to the contract, the employer can fire any workmen at any time. So the contention made by the respondents in not valid. 

RESPONDENT CONTENTION:

The respondents contended that they were denied employment work is done by them contributed heavily to the industry, raw materials for the work were supplied by the management, factory premises and equipment and consequently, the finished product belonged to the management cannot be taken back. The workmen were directly following the orders of the petitioners and the management. So taking all these factors into consideration it was enough evidence that the workmen were the employees and the management was the employer.

COURT OBSERVATION:

The bench of Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer; Justice D.A Desai; Justice O. Chinnapa Reddy said that, 

“the petitioner’s contention would not be disputed in a capitalist economy with fierce market competition and according the Contract Act. But there has been more than a century’s gap between those strict doctrines and today’s social equity-driven industrial jurisprudence, upholding the essence of Preamble to the constitution.”

 The court further said that such decisions cannot be taken spontaneously and it needs a lot of deliberation.

JUDGMEMENT:

The Court gave the judgement that:

 “If the livelihood of the workmen substantially depends on labour designed to produce goods and services for the benefits and satisfaction of a company, the liability cannot be shaken off. Of course, if there is total dissociation in fact between the disowning management and the aggrieved workmen, the employment is, in substance and in real-life terms, by another. The Management’s adventitious connections cannot ripen into real employment.” 

So in conclusion, the court said that the workmen are in fact the employees of the manufacturing company as well and not just the individual contractors and thus the decision was upheld and the leave petition was refused.

The post Workmen hired by independent contractors are also the employees of the company appeared first on LexForti .

Strike means a concerted stoppage of work by workers done with a view of improving their wages or conditions, or giving vent to a grievance or making a protest about something or the other, or supporting or sympathizing with other workers in such endeavour.[1]

Statutorily, a strike is defined as “cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in combination, or a concerted refusal, or refusal under a common understanding, of any number of persons who are or have been so employed to continue to work or to accept employment”.[2] The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides for the ingredients which constitute a strike:

1. The workmen must be employed in an industry.
2. There must be a cessation of work or refusal to perform duties
3. Concerted Action, i.e. the cessation of work by workers must be done under a common understanding.
4. Cessation should be the result of an Industrial Dispute.
5. Presence of a Contract of Employment.

The definition of the term ‘strike’ has been undergoing constant transformation around its basic concept, i.e., putting off work by workmen in their economic struggle with capital.[3]

A strike is when labours fight to protect their dignity. It is considered as workman’s weapon which gives him the ability to stand up against his master, who considers himself as a ‘slave-owner’ to remove the trace of unfair behaviour done towards him. It is a weapon which is used as exasperation when it is the only option left. There has always been a presumption that employers dominate their employees and imposes cruel terms and conditions of employment upon them. Therefore, a tool or a weapon was needed for the workers to safeguard their liberties and seek redressal. However, Justice KC Gupta[4] stated that even when the strike is a legitimate weapon for the workers, it should not be encouraged. Workmen should never think that they can get whatever they want by commencing a strike.

THE RIGHT TO STRIKE AND INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947

Before Independence, there was no law which prevailed with regards to industrial conflicts, but after the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 came into being, right to strike started gaining recognition. But, the Industrial Disputes Act also recognized the circumstances under which a strike can be called illegal.[5] The act implies a right to strike in only industries, where the term ‘industry’ is broadened and includes hospitals, education centres, clubs and government departments. Section 2 (q)[6] of the Act defines ‘strike’. Sections 22[7], 23[8], and 24[9] all recognize the right to strike. Section 24 differentiates between a ‘legal strike’ and an ‘illegal strike’.[10] It should be noted that Section 22 and 23 of the Act do not prohibit strikes but imposes certain restrictions. Section 22 expressly specifies certain conditions to be followed by the workers in order for their strike to be legal,[11] i.e., a strike cannot be resorted:

• Without giving employer a notice of strike within six weeks  before striking
• Within minimum of 14 days of giving such a notice, or
• Before the expiry of the date of strike specified in any such notice as aforesaid
• During the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before the conciliation officer and 7 days after the conclusion of such proceedings.

If the notice of strike is given by the workmen to the employer according to these above-mentioned conditions such notice is deemed to be validly served, and thus, the strike by them is legal.

Also, whether a strike is justiciable or not depends upon the circumstances of each case, for example, strikes resorted with reference to wages, bonus, D.A., gratuity, provident fund, leave and a holiday would make a strike justiciable.[12]

In Gujarat Steel Tubes v. Its Mazdoor Sabha[13], the court said that a strike can be both, legal and illegal and even an illegal strike can be a justified one. Thus, it is the duty if the Judiciary to determine whether a strike is legal or illegal.

The right to strike and the right to collective bargaining are two sides of the same coin. Justice Bhagvati was of the opinion that the right to strike is a process which is recognized by industrial jurisprudence and supported by social justice.[14] Collective bargaining would be a success only if the right to strike is provided to the Trade Unions. A strike is important for workers so that the terms of employment imposed upon them can be rectified.

THE RIGHT TO STRIKE AND ARTICLE 19(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION

Right to Strike is not recognized as a Fundamental Right under our constitution. Strikes gained recognition as a statutory right when the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 came into force. It recognized the right to strike as well as the right to lock-outs of the workmen.

A strike is a modified form of Protest but still, Article 19(1) does not include the fundamental right to strike but includes the fundamental right to protest, right to form associations and trade unions. Right to strike is considered as a legal right and necessarily involves three fundamental rights mentioned under Article 19 which are: Right to Speech and Expression, Right to assemble peacefully and Right to Move Freely. However, in the case of All India Bank Employees Association v. National Industry Tribunal[15], it was held that “even a very liberal interpretation of Article 19 (1) (c) of the Indian Constitution cannot lead to the conclusion that the trade unions have a guaranteed right to collectively bargain in an effective manner or to strike as a part of the collective bargain or otherwise.” Ahmadi J. in B.R. Singh case[16] observed that “Right to strike is a legal right and cannot be considered as a fundamental right.” Workers cannot go to strike assuming that it is their fundamental right to do so.[17]

Right to Strike is considered as a legal right with its own restrictions mentioned under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Trade Unions Act, 1926 highlights that trade unions can also pursue their activities peacefully[18]. Furthermore, the act also recognizes Right to Strike and confers immunity under Section 19 and 19 upon the trade unions. There is a right to form association or unions, but the right to strike is not recognized by our Constitution. However, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as discussed above, does make a distinction between legal and illegal strikes.

Judicial decisions have always emphasized on the legality and illegality of strikes, which needs to be decided with the help of evidence on record[19] but never made any judgment banning strikes. The Court in Kameswar Prasad v. State of Bihar[20], stated that “The rule in so far as it prohibits a strike cannot be struck down since there is no fundamental right to resort to a strike.” The court in T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamilnadu and Ors.,[21] said that the government employees have no legal or moral right to go on strike. Our judiciary recognizes that strike is a weapon for the employees against the employer so that the employer is forced to look at the employees’ point of view and accept his demands.[22]  Judiciary believes that a strike is legal if the situation is just and reasonable and if such a strike doesn’t violate any provision of the statute.[23] Like in a very recent case[24], the court held that doctors cannot deny medical treatment of patients on the ground that they are on strike or protest.

Workmen should not misuse this right and create a nuisance out of it because it would lead to maladministration. In case of a strike by workmen of transport services, the whole country comes to a standstill. In case of strike by workmen in educational institutions, students suffer. In case of strike by medical professionals, the patients suffer. Right to strike is absolute and not a relative right.

Where the courts has realised strike as a weapon of the workmen, it has also declared that absence of strike may lead into lawlessness in the society. Fundamental rights determine to other rights, but the act of strike does not give right to any other right, therefore cannot come under the ambit of fundamental rights. A strike is an activity that can just be perceived by senses, but Fundamental rights are intangible and incorporeal in nature.

1. Strike as a Legal Right: Workmen have attained a right to strike after a long battle with their industries. They took strike as an industrial action so that their demands and rights are acknowledged by the industries. A workman is forced to come to negotiate when the actions of the industry do not meet and his demands are not heard. To raise a voice is the only option he has. And if his voice is not heard, he has to act in a certain way, i.e. by striking, to seek some recognition. Thus, the judiciary realises that workmen come together with a common objective to form a Trade Union and the Trade Union with sufficient membership strength is able to bargain and put forward their demand more efficiently and easily than an individual workman ever could.[25] Also, the workmen are entitled to wages during the period of a strike if the strike is legal and justified,[26] which is to be decided by the industrial administration.[27]
2. Strike as a Statutory Right: The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 gives recognition to strike as a statutory right. It interprets the term ‘industry’[28] and ‘strike’[29] widely and the statutory provisions differentiate between a legal and an illegal strike[30] as mentioned above. ‘Illegal strikes’ as those which are in contravention to the procedure of going to strike, as laid down under Sections 22 and 23.

Other than Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Trade Unions Act, 1926 also recognizes the right to strike as a statutory right under sections 18 and section 19 and confers immunity upon Trade Unions on strike in case if civil liability arises.

CONCLUSION

Inevitably, every right comes with its own duties. Right to Strike must be the weapon of last resort because if this right is misused, it will affect the whole economy by creating problems in the production and financial profit of the industry.

In India, the right to protest is a fundamental right under Article 19 but right to strike is a legal right and its statutory restriction is attached in the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as mentioned above. The violation of provisions of this Act will make the strike an illegal strike. Thus, if a right has so many restrictions, it can never be a fundamental right. Every worker has the right to strike peacefully and make needful and legitimate demands. It is a very important weapon for wage bargaining as well as for the worker to seek redressal and safeguard his liberties. However, this right is provided only if certain conditions are fulfilled. However, government employees in India have no legal or statutory right to strike.

Lastly, Fundamental rights determine to other rights, but the act of strike does not give right to any other right, therefore cannot come under the ambit of fundamental rights. A strike is an activity that can just be perceived by senses, but Fundamental rights are intangible and incorporeal in nature.

Shivani Upadhyay

[1] Lexis Nexis, Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th edition, Vol. 47 (469)

[2] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sec. 2 (q)

[3] Vijay M. Gawas, Analysis the provision for right to strike of workers under the industrial dispute act 1947 and other provisions of laws, Volume 4; Issue 5, ISSN: 2455-2194, IJL, 25-30, September 2018.

[4] Chandramalai estate, Ernakulam v Its Workmen, 1960(II) LLJ 243

[5] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 22

[6] “strike” means a cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in combination or a concerted refusal, or a refusal under a common understanding, of any number of persons who are or have been so employed to continue to work or to accept employment.

[7] Prohibition of strikes and lock-outs

[8] General prohibition of strikes and lock-outs.

[9] Illegal strikes and lock-outs

[10] Vishnu S. Warrier, Right to Strike and Article 19 (1) of the Indian Constitution, (6) 25 August 2010

[11] Mineral Miners’ Union v. Kudremukh Iron Co. Ltd., (1986) I LL J Karn

[12] Swadesi Industries Limited v. Its workmen, n, 1960 II LLJ 78 (SC)

[13] (1990) Lab IC 389 SC

[14] Id.

[15] AIR 1962 SC 171

[16] B.R. Sing v. Union of India, 1990 AIR, 1 1989 SCR Supl. (1) 257

[17] Radhey shyam sharma v. Post Master General central circle Nagpur, 1965 AIR 311; 1964 SCR (7) 403

[18] Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt.ltd. v. T.M. Nagarajan, 1987 (15) DRJ 212; 1988 LablC 1067; 1988 RLR 194

[19] Bank of India v. Kalewala, 1990 SCR (3) 214; 1990 SCC (4) 744

[20] 1962 AIR 1166,

[21] 2003 SOL Case No. 429

[22] Kotagiri v.Rajamanickan, 1960 AIR 893; 1960 SCR (3) 371

[23] Crompton Greaves Ltd v. Workmen, , AIR 1978 SC 1489

[24] Moti Lal Yadav and Ors. v. State of UP, Writ C No. 35594 of 2016

[25] B.R. Singh v. Union of India, (1990) Lab.IC 389 SC 396

[26] Bank of India v T.S. Kelawala, 1990 (4) SCC 744

[27] Id at 4.

[28] Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548

[29] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sec. 2(q)

[30] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sec. 24

The post Is Right to strike a Fundamental Right? appeared first on LexForti .

People’s Union For Democratic Rights And Others Vs Union Of India

FACTS:

This case was related to child labour. In this case, it was found out that construction workers who were employed in the site were child labourers they were brought from backward villages of Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh. In addition to that, the working conditions were miserable and the living conditions were even worse. The Child labourers were paid less than the minimum wage and their health condition was deteriorating rapidly. They were working on infrastructure facilities of hotels and flyovers. In 1981, the bad living conditions and miserable working conditions were brought to the public’s knowledge by the team of people’s union for democratic right (PUDR). Thus, a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court and many concerns were put forward by the PUDR. This was considered as a landmark judgement and put a lot of importance in the concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

RULES:

Writ petition under article 32 of the Indian Constitution.

ISSUES:

Whether Article-21 of the Indian Constitution also includes right to live with human dignity and right to livelihood? And whether the writ petition can be maintainable against an individual under Article-32 of the Indian Constitution?

PETITIONER CONTENTION:

The petitioner contended that the contracters cleverly brought these labourers to work through middle men known as jamamdars to carry out the construction work. Further stated that various acts were violated by the contracts as the minimum wage was not paid to the workers directly but instead paid to the jamamdras which means that the workers were being paid very less. Children below 14 years were working in these construction sites under hazardous conditions which was against the employment of children’s act. There were also further misappropriations of migrations of workers and women workers not being paid their entire dues.

RESPONDENT CONTENTION:

The respondent contended that the petitioners have no locus standi as none of their rights were being violated and the petitioners could not ask for any cause of action as the case did not affect them in any way and it only concerns the rights of the workers. They also contended that the writ petition could not stand as the workers were not the employees of the petitioners but were the employees of someone else. Thus, they denied and negated all the allegations that were made against them claimed that it was not maintainable in court.

BENCH OBSERVATION:

The bench comprising of Justice P.N Bhagwati and Justice Baharul Islam observed that forced labour is prohibited in the country and is violates article 21 of the Indian constitution. The court said that it is the duty of the government and it’s organizations to check if the various laws are properly implemented or not. Basic human dignity must be given utmost importance and issues of forced labour and bonded labour must be dealt with immediately.

JUDGEMENT:

The court in its judgement said that the rights of a poor worker to be upheld and said that the Writ petition was maintainable under article 32 of the Indian constitution. The Supreme Court also expanded the scope of article 21 of the Indian Constitution and included “right to livelihood” along with “right to live” with basic dignity. The court broke the chain of rules and regulations and moulded it for the benefit of the general public at large.

The post Rights of poor workers upheld by the Supreme Court appeared first on LexForti .

Introduction

This act came into force on 23 April 1946. It applies to the whole of India.  It contains rules and regulations regarding industrial employment. This act was enacted to bring uniformity, industrial peace and to establish a cordial relationship between management and workers of all organizations for smooth functioning and to enhance productivity. It applies to those industries where the number of employees is 100 or more and even for a single day in the preceding 12 months, the workmen were 100 or more of that particular industry. An appropriate government (state or central government) is empowered to apply this act in such industrial establishment where the number of workers is less than 100 by giving a two months notice, under section 1 of Industrial Employment (Standing Order). There are some industrial establishments that are controlled by the central government so in this case, the central government will be the appropriate government to make decisions for that industry like Indian Railway administration, major ports, oil fields, (according to section 2B).

According to section 2G of this act, a standing order is the rules relating to matters set out in the schedule to the Act. This act came up with some standard rules or standing orders which will be followed by every industrial establishment. It requires employers to clearly define the rules and working conditions of employment.

Objective of the Standing Orders Act, 1946

• The main objective of this act is to enforce uniformity in the working conditions of different employees of different industrial establishments.
• Once the industrial establishment comes under the Standing Orders Act rules, the employer can not change the rules of employment and can-not violate its worker’s rights and interests.
• Employment rules and conditions are given to the workers in written form so that they can think and then accept it according to their preference.
• This act was enacted to enhance the productivity level and providing a healthy working environment.

Scope of Standing Orders Act, 1946

There are some industrial establishments who are exempted from this act.

 According to section 1 of the Standing Orders Act, this Act doesn’t apply to those industrial establishments where provisions of Chapter VII of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 applies and, also where provisions of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 applies.

As mentioned in section 13 B of this Act, it has exempted some more industrial establishments from the domain of this Act like those industrial establishments where the workmen employed are the persons to whom the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, Civil Service (Temporary Services) Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil Service Regulations, Civilians in Defence Service ( Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules or the Indian Railway Establishment Code. And, also appropriate government (central or state) can notify through Official Gazette to exempt any other establishmentfrom this Act.

Moreover, according to section 14 of this Act, the appropriate government is empowered to exempt any of the industrial establishment, conditionally or unconditionally from all or any of the provisions of this Act.

Importance of Standing Order Act in industrial relations

As mentioned above this act was enacted to bring uniformity between organizations. Every organization has set some rules and regulations for its functioning but under this act, if an organization qualifies all the conditions mentioned above then this act will apply to that particular organization. We can say that this act has a set of common rules and regulations related to employment, which is followed by all industrial establishments that come under this act.

It secures the need and interest of employees from violation by giving a healthy working condition. According to section 10A (1) If a workman has been suspended by his employer and pending investigation or inquiry into complaints or charges of misbehavior or illegal behavior against him,  Than the employer has to pay to the workmen. And also according to section 13(2) if an employer does not work in accordance with the rules laid down under this act then he will be punished with a fine of one hundred rupees and if he continues to repeat this same mistake then twenty –five rupees will be extended for every day when he repeated the same mistake from the first time.

After going through these sections we can say that this act enables the employer to work in accordance with specified rules of this act to save the need and interest of employees.

Some related cases

• Barauni Refinery Pragati Sheel Parishad vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (1991) 1 SCC 4
• Derby Textiles Ltd. vs. Karamchari and Shramik Union  (1991) 2 LLN 774
• Air Gases Mazdoor Sangh, Varanasi vs. Indian Air Gases Ltd., 1977 Lab. I.C. 575
• Khadi Gram Udyog Sangh vs. Jit Ram, 1975-2 L.L. J. 413
• Indian Express Employee Union vs. Indian Express (Madurai) Ltd. (1998) 1 Cur LR 1161 (Ker).

The post All about INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDER) ACT, 1946 appeared first on LexForti .

Introduction

A country’s development and its economy are driven by the workmen, which constitutes a significant portion of society. The growth of Labour law across the globe can be found after the establishment of the International Labour Organisation in the year 1919, which has also resulted in the development of the labour laws in India. One of the earliest establishments of the labour/industrial law can be found during the period of the British colonialism, which was passed for the vested interests of British employers. This however changed when the first statute under the Labour law was passed. The Trade Dispute Act, 1929, was passed to regulate the relationship between the employer and the employee.

The labour law also referred to as the employment law is a set of laws that covers a plethora of acts including various administrative rulings, precedents which provide for and address the legal rights of the employees and the restrictions on the employees and the organisations. This has resulted in the long evolving labour laws of India, which aimed at providing a long-standing solution to the problems faced by the labourers. One of the significant responsibility or the role of the Government of a country is to solve the various problems faced by the labourers, and for that, the Government enacts and implement various laws to combat such issues not only for the employers but also for the management. This article shall be dealing with the implementation of the labour laws with a critical focus on the Centre’s role in its implementation and highlighting the various laws passed by the legislature.

Constitutional Provisions of Labour laws

In India, the labour law covers almost all the subjects concerning the well-being of a labour or a person employed. It provides various benefits ranging from the Minimum Wages Act, Workmen Compensation Act, Maternity Benefits Act, to name a few. The dignity of the human labour and its need for protecting and safeguarding the interest of the labour has been enshrined under Article III( 16,19,23& 24) and Article IV(39, 41,42,43& 54) of the Constitution along with the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of the State Policy. Under the Indian Constitution, the word “labour” has been put under the Concurrent list which therefore makes both the Centre and the State competent to enact and implement such legislation. Article 246(4) of the Indian Constitution also empowers both the Centre and the State to make any law on labour. This has resulted in the enactment of laws which has catered the needs of labour under various aspects including their health, employment, safety, payment, regulating the working condition of the workers, etc. The laws classified under as:

• Labour laws enacted by the Central Government, where the central Government has the sole responsibility for the enforcement
• Labour laws enacted by the Central Government and enforced by both the Centre and the State.
• Labour laws enacted by the Central Government and enforced by the State.
• Labour laws enacted by the State.

Centre’s role in implementation of Labour laws

Most of the laws concerning the enactment of the labour laws are done by the Centre. The Ministry of Labour and Employment seeks to protect the interest of the workers and their employers for their growth, in the same way, it also makes the necessary Acts or rulings that the covers the interest of the workers coming from the poor, deprived and the underdeveloped section of the society. In the implementation of the labour laws, the Centre’s role is of prime importance. The labour legislation and the industrial jurisprudence are governed by four fundamental principles which include social equity, social justice, International uniformity and National economy. While implementing the various labour laws, the Centre has the responsibility of knowing and understanding whether the concerned law satisfies the above stated fundamental principles. The Centre, while implementing the labour laws, keeps in mind the following aspects:

• Safety, health and welfare of the labourers
• Security of the labourers
• Specific policies relating to the women and child labour
• Job creation
• Adjudication of various industrial disputes through Tribunals or the Labour Courts
• Education of the workers
• Medical facilities for the workers
• The attraction of more public and private investments.

The various legislation enacted by the Government are:

1. Laws relating to the Industrial Relations
2. Laws relating to wages
3. Laws relating to social security
4. Laws relating to Working Hours, Conditions of Services and Employment
5. Laws relating to Equality and Empowerment of Women
6. Prohibitive Labour Laws
7. Laws relating to Employment and Training

This above-cited legislation passed by the Central Government governs the functioning of the labourers with the primary purpose of providing the maximum benefits to the workers so that their right is not neglected and with an attempt of solving the various problems faced by the labourers. 

Conclusion

The Central Government’s role in the implementation of the labour laws is pivotal. As per the report of the Ministry of the Labour and Employment, the year 2019 saw a 63% decrease in the number of man-days lost due to various disputes between the workers and the Government as compared to the year of 2018. Such an improvement is commendable, and it shows that requirements of the labourers can be achieved only when the labour laws or the employment laws are formulated for the workers and not for the interest of the particular section.

The main aim of this article has been to highlight the role of the Centre in the implementation of the labour law through the lens of the enactment of laws and how such laws are proportional for the well-being of the workers. 

The post Role of Central Government in implementing Labour Laws appeared first on LexForti .

Introduction

When there are differences among the people working in an industry is known as Industrial Dispute. Industrial Dispute may arise between ‘employer and employee’ ‘employee and employee’ or ‘employer and employer’. And common reasons which arise dispute are wage, working hours, working conditions, and compensation. All these disputes lead to hampering the relation of employers and employees and this could arise the problems like retrench, lay-off, lockout the employee from the work area, also, strikes, damage to property of the employer, agitation and when the dispute is not solved, it can even lead to the closing of the business. This effect the employer as well as employee and directly or indirectly it affects the nation as a whole because every industry or business contributes to the nation’s income.

To solve this problem The Industrial Disputes Act was enacted on 11th March 1947, but it came into force on 1st April 1947. It applies to the whole of India and covers all types of industries. It also regulates labor laws.

Objective

1. This act was enacted to establish peace and harmony by mediating all the differences. It lays down the principles and measures which should be taken for smooth functioning.
2. To support the employees who have been wrongfully terminated or laid-out.
3. To empower employees and promote collective bargaining.
4. It provides machinery and proper procedures for investigation and settlement of disputes.
5. To promote a healthy working relationship between employee and employer.
6. To prevent unauthorize strikes of laborers and lockouts and unfair labor practice.
7. Provide a grievance procedure so that the employees can seek help.

Important provisions of the Act

1. Works Committee (section 3):- Those industries in which 100 or more employees have been employed within 12 months need to establish a works committee by the government’s order. This committee contains representative of employers as well as employees and the representatives from both the sides of employer and employee should be equal in number.  The representative of employees should be chosen in a prescribed manner among the workmen who are engaged in the establishment and consultation with their trade union. This committee works in the direction of solving day to day issues of employees and assist their grievances. The works committee must secure and establish a healthy working relationship between employer and employee.

The representative of employees should be chosen in a prescribed manner among the workmen who are engaged in the establishment and consultation with their trade union. This committee works in the direction of solving day to day issues of employees and assist their grievances. The works committee must secure and establish a healthy working relationship between employer and employee.

2. Conciliation Officers (Section-4):-. In this, a conciliation officer is appointed through to solve the dispute by mediating issues between parties. He may be appointed for a specific area or industry and maybe for more than one specific industry for either a permanent or temporary basis.

1. Boards of Conciliation (Section-5):- To solve a dispute, the Board of Conciliation is established. This board includes an independent and impartial chairperson and two of four other members who represent both the parties to dispute. The representative of both parties should be consist of equal members. These parties with their respective representative sit together to mediate their issues in front of the chairperson. Representatives of each party are selected on their recommendation and if one party is not able to recommend their representative then the appropriate government selects representation for them.
2. Courts of Inquiry (Section-6):- This section talks about establishment of a court of inquiry to look into the cause of dispute and take all the essential steps in solving it. This court is consists of one or more independent persons and in case if there are two or more independent persons then one of them is selected as the chairperson. The court shall not proceed without a chairperson.
3. The Labour Court (Section-7):- According to this section, one or more labor court is established for the solving disputes of mattes which are laid down in 2nd schedule. This court contains one member who is appointed by the Government. For an appointment, that person must qualify the given conditions i.e. He has to be a High Court Judge (at present or former);He has to be a District Court Judge or an Additional District Court Judge for at least three years;He must have a judicial office in India for at least seven years; and He has to be the present officer of the Labour Court for a period of five years.
4. Tribunals (Section-7A):- If the dispute is at a lower level than small tribunals are formed. One or more Tribunals formed for the adjudication of disputes related to the matters, which are laid down in the Second Schedule and Third Schedule. This tribunal contains one member who is appointed by the appropriate Government. For an appointment, that person must qualify the following conditions;            

(a) he has to be a judge of High Court (at present or former).                  

(b) he has been a District Court Judge or an Additional District Judge for at least three years. Besides the chairperson, two more members are appointed to advise the respected Tribunal in the proceeding.

•  National Tribunals (section 7B):– When the dispute is at a higher level and it becomes the matter of national importance, it may not be limited to only one state than a National Tribunal is formed. One or more National Tribunals are formed for the adjudication of disputes by the central government.

The post An Overview of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 appeared first on LexForti .

Introduction

Every worker has the right to claim compensation for the losses that he/she incurred during his/her employment. Can we imagine a workplace where no measures are taken for the worker’s well-being? The answer to this is a probable no, but over the years various incidents ranging from industrial accidents to diseases acquired during the employment has surfaced, but for such accidents, due provision is present which thus provides for compensation to the workmen. Prior to 1923, no such act or legislation was available which rendered them to suffer from various misfortunes, disabilities and accidents. As the country advanced, so did the industries and with that the dangers faced by the workmen. They were prone to diseases and various occupational hazards which the then laws failed to address. It was only in 1921 that the Government realised the general need for laws protecting the workers and therefore the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 came into existence. The Act was amended in the year 2009 changing the title from Workmen’s Compensation Act to Employees Compensation Act and substituting the word “workman” or “workmen” to “employee” or “employees” wherever it was deemed to be necessary along with some other changes. This Act came into force from the 1^st of July 1924 and was applied to the whole of India. 

Objective

The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 came into existence to impose a statutory liability upon the employer so that it discharges his moral obligation when they suffer from any such injuries. This Act was one of the earliest labour welfare laws to have been passed with the prime objective of providing compensation to the workers in the event of an accident during the course of the employment. The Worker’s Compensation Act, 1923 identifies itself as social security legislation which aims at providing compensation to even those dependants including daughter or a son who has not attained the age of 18 years, a widow, and others who has been included u/s 2(1)(d) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 1923. It prioritises the fast-paced compensational process with a motive of the minimal rate at which the dispute can be disposed of.

Scope of this Act

As has been previously mentioned, this Act applies to the whole of India and covers all such persons including a railway servant, construction workers, factory workers, loading & unloading work on a ship, maintenance and repairs of roads and bridges, circus and other employments which have been listed under Schedule II of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Upon the amendment of the Workmen’s Compensation Act in the year 1995, the Act extended its scope to the workers of newspaper establishments, drivers, cleaners, motor vehicle workers, persons occupying horticultural jobs and various other mechanical jobs. A person who has been employed through contract is also liable to receive compensation under this specified Act. This means that an employee has the right to be indemnified by the contractor, but the principal liability lies on the employer. This was held in the case of Managing Director, Orissa State v. Smt. Gitarani Seal and Anr. [II (1991) ACC 649]

However, this present Act does not apply to the members serving under the Armed Forces, which is under the Indian Union and also the employees covered under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.

Employer’s Liability under The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923

Section 3 of The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 provides for the circumstances where an employer would be liable to pay the compensation:

• If the employee suffered a personal injury
• The injury was caused by an accident
• The accident must have arisen in the course of the employment
• The injury must have resulted in the death of the employee or his/her total or partial disablement for a period exceeding 3 days.

This section, however, points out the instances when the employer is not liable. They are:

• If the injury did not result in partial/ total disablement of the employer for a period exceeding 3 days
• The employee was under the influence of drugs.
• Employee wilfully disobeyed the order expressly given or framed for the security of the employee.

Subject to this, Schedule I of this Act provides for the list of injuries under which the employer would be responsible. They are:

1. Partial disablement
2. Total disablement

Under Partial Disablement, it is divided into two types; temporary and permanent disablement. Partial disablement reduces the earning capacity of the employee because of the accident which he/she incurred during the course of the employment.

• Temporary disablement- This type of disablement is temporary in nature which thus reduces the earning capacity of the workman because of the accident incurred during the employment.
• Permanent disablement- This type of disablement is permanent and reduces the earning capacity of the workman for every employment because of the accident incurred during the employment.

Total disablement refers to disablement, whether of temporary or permanent nature which incapacitates the workman for all the works which he was previously capable of performing during the employment.

Conclusion

Workmen’s Compensation Act has been instrumental in safeguarding the rights of the workmen. Such an Act is a boon for the workmen as it provides several benefits for their well-being. A workman contributes immensely towards the development of an employer’s occupation, thus rendering it towards success. This article aimed to provide a comprehensive yet concise outline of The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 with a focus on the compensation being provided to the workmen.

The post An Overview of the Workers Compensation Act, 1923 appeared first on LexForti .