Workers' Right To Life Cannot Be Deemed Contingent On The Mercy Of Their Employer Or The State: SC Quashes Gujarat Govt. Notification [Read Judgment]

Workers' right to life cannot be deemed contingent on the mercy of their employer or the State, remarked the Supreme Court observed in the judgment allowing Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha's writ petition on Thursday.Justice DY Chandrachud led three judge bench quashed a notification issued by the Labour and Employment Department of the State of Gujarat under Section 5 of the Factories Act which exempted all factories registered under the Act "from various provisions relating to weekly hours, daily hours, intervals for rest etc. for adult workers" under Sections 51, 54, 55 and 56. The court said that these notifications are an affront to the workers' right to life and right against forced labour that are secured by Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution.The bench, also comprising Justices Indu Malhotra and KM Joseph, directed that overtime wages shall be paid to all eligible workers who have been working since the issuance of the notifications.Section 5 of the Factories Act provides that in a public emergency, the State Government can exempt any factory or class or description of factories from all or any of the provisions of the Act, except Section 67. The issue raised in these cases was whether the COVID-19 pandemic and the nationwide lockdown qualify as a 'public emergency' as defined in Section 5?While concluding, the bench observed:This Court is cognizant that the Respondent aimed to ameliorate the financial exigencies that were caused due to the pandemic and the subsequent lockdown. However, financial losses cannot be offset on the weary shoulders of the laboring worker, who provides the backbone of the economy. Section 5 of the Factories Act could not have been invoked to issue a blanket notification that exempted all factories from complying with humane working conditions and adequate compensation for overtime, as a response to a pandemic that did not result in an 'internal disturbance' of a nature that posed a 'grave emergency' whereby the security of India is threatened. In any event, no factory/ classes of factories could have been exempted from compliance with provisions of the Factories Act, unless an 'internal disturbance' causes a grave emergency that threatens the security of the state, so as to constitute a 'public emergency' within the meaning of Section 5 of the Factories Act. In its judgment, the court has referred to various precedents on 'public emergency' and 'security of the state'. The court observed:"The power under Section 5 of the Factories Act can be exercised in a "public emergency". The explanation states that to constitute a public emergency, there must be a grave emergency. The emergency must be of such a nature as to threaten the security of India or a part of its territory. The threat to the security of India or a part of the territory must be caused by war, external aggression or an internal disturbance. The expression 'internal disturbance' cannot be divorced from its context, or be read in a manner divorced from the other two expressions which precede it. They are indicative of the gravity of the cause which threatens the security of India or a part of its territory. An internal disturbance must be of a similar gravity. Further, it is necessary to evaluate whether a situation of internal disturbance threatens the security of India, or a part of its territory to qualify as a 'public emergency'. In the absence of any one or more of the constituent elements, the conditions requisite for the exercise of statutory power will not exist.The state justified these notifications contending that the pandemic has resulted in an internal disturbance. To that argument, the bench said:"We find that the economic slowdown created by the COVID-19 pandemic does not qualify as an internal disturbance threatening the security of the state. The pandemic has put a severe burden on existing, particularly public health, infrastructure and has led to a sharp decline in economic activities. The Union Government has taken recourse to the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. However, it has not affected the security of India, or of a part of its territory in a manner that disturbs the peace and integrity of the country. The economic hardships caused by COVID–19 certainly pose unprecedented challenges to governance. However, such challenges are to be resolved by the State Governments within the domain of their functioning under the law, in coordination with the Central Government. Unless the threshold of an economic hardship is so extreme that it leads to disruption of public order and threatens the security of India or of a part of its territory, recourse cannot be taken to such emergency powers which are to be used sparingly under the law. Recourse can be taken to them only when the conditions requisite for a valid exercise of statutory power exist under Section 5. That is absent in the present case. "The following are some important observations made in the judgment:Brunt of the pandemic and ...

Workers' Right To Life Cannot Be Deemed Contingent On The Mercy Of Their Employer Or The State: SC Quashes Gujarat Govt. Notification [Read Judgment]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Workers' Right To Life Cannot Be Deemed Contingent On The Mercy Of Their Employer Or The State: SC Quashes Gujarat Govt. Notification [Read Judgment]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers