Prakul Khera & Harshal Sareen
In the past decade, India has brought various labour law reforms including compilation of all its labour law legislations into a comprehensive labour code. However, like every nation state it could not apprehend the upheaval a virus could bring to the state affairs. This has pushed the major economies at the verge of depression. The Governments across the globe are putting maximum efforts to mitigate its affects. This haphazard has resulted in despair and hardship to persons from every strata of society.
In order to reinvigorate the battered economy the Indian government has lifted the lockdown and eased certain restrictions. The state policies point out towards a regime with relaxed labour laws in the post lockdown regime. Moreover, several state governments including the Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh government have decided to relinquish labor rights and laws barring a few exceptions. The government’s stance on these relaxations will have dire consequences on the negotiating balance that the constitution and judiciary has been trying to create.
This state policy of relaxed labour laws is against the fundamental welfare obligations of state as inscribed in the International treaties as well as in Constitution of India. The state government in an effort to create pro industry legislation has created favorable environment for the oppression of the workers, since it puts the laborers to sheer exploitation with regards to wages, safety, and health and working hours. Further, the exemption of all the labour laws for the long time would leave Unions with no bargaining power.
Additionally, India is a party to the International Labour Organisation and has ratified most of its treaty obligations. The ILO Constitution very lucidly points out that the conditions of labour involve injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people. There is an obligation on the ratifying states to provide humane conditions of work for sustainable and peaceful societies. Under, these obligations and constitutional promises under Part III as well as the directive principles the state must protect the labor class from any exploitation. The state must also strengthen the economy keeping in mind the socialist and welfare letters inscribed in its preamble of constitution. In addition, the suspension of labor laws poses both constitutional and economic challenges. With this background, the post now examines the constitutional and economic challenges posed before the termination of labour laws.
The Constitutional challenge to the Termination Of Labour Laws
To understand the nuances of constitutionality we must understand the reason why such legislations are significant for welfare of labour class. The legislations like Factories Act 1948, Industrial Dispute Act 1947 and Minimum Wages provisions ensure the security of laborers. Moreover, the basic purpose of the Factories Act is to make sure the availability of safety measures and encourage good working conditions and health of the laborers. Therefore, any unreasonable relaxation with regards to such laws violates the right to life of the laborers conferred under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The judiciary has provided a wide ambit to the expression ‘life’ and ‘personal liberty’ under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution through the judgment of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. The Supreme Court in order to protect the hardships of labors have observed that “The Right to Life includes the right to live with dignity and free from exploitation” as held in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors.
The right to health of labour has been recognized by the Supreme Court under the ambit of Right to Life. Therefore, it is important to note that the relaxation of labor laws undermines the objective of healthy working conditions, timely payment, regulation of working hours etc. Since, with relaxation of labor laws all the employers are entitled to dismiss employees at their discretion and therefore excluded from the duty to increase minimum wages of the laborers. The companies are not required to supply staff with safety gear, electricity, ventilation, toilet facilities, rest intervals, first aid kits etc. which undermines the right to health of the labour. Therefore, the relaxation in labour laws would violate Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
In addition to Article 21, termination of labour laws also violates Article 23 of Indian Constitution. The constitution makers while passing the Article 23 consciously departed from the language and chose terms that would render scope and meaning of Article 23 wider than that of Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The suspension of Minimum Wages provisions would create an environment for the exploitation by the employers, and would lead to the forced labour, thereby it violates Article 23(1) of the Indian Constitution. In the case of People’s of Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, the court stated that Article 23 shall have vast and unlimited scope. This article aims at forced labor, in whatever way it may exist, in violation of human rights and in opposition to basic human values.
The word ‘force’ has a very wide meaning under Article 23. It not only includes physical or legal force but also recognizes economic circumstances which compel a person to work against his will on less than minimum wage. The Supreme Court observed, any payment below the minimum wage to a labour working in relief work amounts to infringement of Article 23. Several states by promulgating ordinance has compelled the labours to work against their will. To conclude, the legislative relaxation pertaining to minimum wages amounts to violation of fundamental rights of the labour class.
The suspension of the laws for appropriate grievance redressal mechanism i.e. Industrial Disputes Act is also problematic. The Apex Court in the case of Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sadan has acknowledged that the right of access to proper redressed mechanism and justice as a fundamental right. Such labour law policies pose a question on constitutional values of the Indian State.
The economic challenge to termination of Labour laws
The vision of the state government with regards to liberalizing the labour law is to revive the economy by increasing employment and investment. Though it is very optimistic of the state government. However, it would further aggravate the problem of demand. Since, the labourers will be ready to work in exploitative conditions and availability of labour would surge in labour dominated areas. As a result of excessive supply, industry owners will pay meager amounts and far less than the fair wage. Thereby, it would leave the labour class of the society with insufficient disposable income among. Further, it will aggravate the gap between poor and rich, which is against the objectives of welfare economy.
Moreover, the assumption that labour law impedes the investment holds no significance. This move by the state disregards substantial evidences which support the absence of connection between protective labour law systems in hindering financial development. It can be established by the study held in 2014-15, which analyzed when several states suspended certain legislations like the Contract Labour Act, 1970 Industrial Disputes Act, 1950, and the Factories Act, 1948, that such amendment had no impact upon in revitalizing the economy.
It is erroneous of the state governments to assume that the suspension of labour laws would thrive the economy. Labour laws are one of the factors which regulate the business environment. The evidences also supports that labour reforms which are planned to strengthen the protection of labour can positively affect laborer efficiency and business development. Given unemployment is at its zenith and the economy is sluggish, the labour reforms rather than any good would aggravate the crisis for vulnerable laborers and expose them to exploitation. Further, the argument posed by the government that owing to stand-off between China and USA, global companies are searching for other places where they can locate their plants, is erroneous. Firstly, because the congenial working environment is a matter of right of labours, though has not been warranted by fundamental rights, but in fact they are no less persuasive. Secondly, any company’s investment is determined by the market’s expected growth and it doesn’t get affected by changes in the profit margin. Therefore, even if there is a decrease in wages, since the bargaining power of labor has been weakened by the annulment of labor laws, this would increase the profit margin, but not the level of investment for the entire business sector. Therefore, not only this policy of suspending labor laws is not rational, proportional or constitutionally valid but also will increase the gap between have and have not which is against the welfare economy concept.
Prakul Khera & Harshal Sareen, 5th year & 3rd Year resp. students of Institute of Law Nirma University, Ahmedabad.
Picture Credits: iPleaders Blog
Leave a Reply