ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN SHAPING

LABOUR POLICY

Submitted By:
Dharmendra Singh
(14HS60001)
Arvind Topno

(14HS60002)

Durga Prakash

(14HS60009)

Vaibhav Punetha
(14HS60010)

ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN POLICY

FORMULATION
JUDICIARY
It is the third organ of state and plays a very important role in Policy formulation
At Apex level of judiciary system is Supreme Court.
Its pronouncements have moulded the thrust and contents of Public Policy.
It ensures that only such Policies are framed which are in accordance with the

constitution.
It issues directions to executive and State and Union Government for framing

appropriate policies.
Supreme Court has Power of Judicial Review: Power of the Courts to Hold

Unconstitutional any Law or any official action based on it as illegal or void.

It also helps to interpret the legislative acts and provide guide and support the

Govt. through various judicial committees to understand or analyze the law and
situation.

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

Principle of equal pay for equal work not expressly declared as fundamental right by
constitution
There are some Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles stated under
Art.14(Equality before Law), Art.16(Equality of opportunity in matters of public
employment), Art.39d(equal pay for equal work for both men and women) but these
are not enforceable.
The principle embodied in Article 39(d) of the Constitution was first considered in
Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi vs Union of India in 1962. The Supreme Court then said
that it was not capable of being enforced in a court of law.
In 1982, when the affirmative adrenalin began to flow in the Supreme Court, the
thinking changed and in Randhir Singh vs Union of India it was unequivocally ruled
that the principle was not an abstract doctrine and could be enforced by reading into it
the equality precepts enshrined in Articles 14 and 16. The court went so far as to say
that even a daily wage employee who is performing duties similar to regular
employees is entitled to the same pay.
The Supreme Court took another turn by 1988 and veered round to the view that the
principle cannot be enforced and it should remain only as a guiding star for the law
makers and judiciary.
Conclusion: Judiciary provides the machinery to enforce such labour rights but they just
do not quote it blindly in all cases and use it as a guiding star in their pronouncements

RIGHTS OF WOMAN EMPLOYEES

There are a number of cases in which the Supreme Court helped

to advance the rights of womenand strike down those laws or
practices that were discriminatory:

One of the earliest challenges came from Ms. Muthamma, a

senior Indian Foreign Service Officer. In 1978 she filed a writ
petitionstating that certain rules in the Indian Foreign Service
(Recruitment, cadre, seniority andpromotion) Rules, 1961 were
discriminatory. The rules in fact provided that no married
womanwould be entitled as of right to be appointed to the
service. In fact a woman member wasrequired to obtain
permission of the government in writing before her marriage
was solemnizedand that she could be required to resign if the
government was satisfied that due to her familyand domestic
commitments she was unable to discharge her duties efficiently.

The SupremeCourt struck down these rules on the ground that

they violated the fundamental right of womenemployees to
equal treatment in matters of public employment under Article
16 of theConstitution.

CONTINUED..

InMrs. Neera Mathur v Life Insurance Corporation of Indiathe Supreme

Court recognized theright to privacy of female employee. Mrs. Neera did
not disclose her pregnancy when she was appointed by the LIC and when she
returned after pregnancy leaveshe was terminated. The Supreme Court on
perusing thequestionnaire was shocked to find that it required women to provide
such information about past pregnancies. It considered them to be an invasion
ofprivacy and violation of Article 2. It,therefore, directed the LIC to reinstate Mrs.
Neera and to delete those columns from its futurequestionnaires.

One of the most important decisions of the Supreme Court isVishaka v State
ofRajasthan.This was a writ petition filed by several non-governmental
organizations and socialactivists seeking judicial intervention in the absence of
any law to protect women from sexualharassment in the work place. The Court
observed that every incident of sexual harassment is aviolation of the right to
equality and right to life and liberty under the Constitution and that thelogical
consequence of sexual harassment further violated a womans right to freedom to
choosewhatever business, occupation or trade she wanted under Article 19 (1)
(g). The Court invoked the text of the Convention for the Elimination of all forms of
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and framed guidelines for establishing
redressal mechanisms to tackle sexual harassment of women at workplaces.

Conclusion: Such guidelines and judicial activism helped finally to enact the:
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013

M.C. MEHTA VS. STATE OF TAMIL

NADU
This case dealt with employment of child labour in manufacturing

of matches and fire-crackers at Sivakasi. On 31st December 1985

there were 221 registered match factories in Sivakasi; these
factories employed 27,338 workmen of which 2,941 were children.

The Supreme Court directed :

(a) The offending employer to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/-for every

child employed in contravention of the provisions of the Child Labour

(Prohibition and Regulation) Act.
(b) This sum to be deposited in a fund known as Child Labour

Rehabilitation-cum-Welfare Fund. Such fund to be established district

wise.

RELEVANT SECTIONS UNDER ID ACT, 1947 FOR THIS VERDICT

Sec.2(s) - "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any

industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory
work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied, and
for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute,
includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged, or retrenched in
connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or
retrenchment has led to that dispute.

Sec 25B- a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that
period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of
sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or
a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;

Sec 25F- Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in

any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an
employer shall be retrenched by that employer until

A) the workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for
retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu
of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:

The workmen has been paid at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be
equivalent to fifteen days annual pay for every completed year of continuous service or
anypart thereof in excess of six months.

Notice in the prsecribed manner is served on the appropriate government or such

authority as may be specified by the appropriate government by notification in the official
gazette.

IS A PART TIME WORKER ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF CONTINUOUS

SERVICE UNDER SEC 25-B AND PROTECTION OF SEC 25-F
The case under question was between New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs A

Sankaralingam.
A Sankaralingam worked as a sweeper cum water carrier for New India

Assurance Co. Ltd on a monthly wage of Rs.130.

After working for about three years, he asked his services to be regularized but

was informed on the contrary that he was not required to work with effect from
15th March, 1989.
The matter went to the industrial tribunal who in its award stated that A

Sankaralingam was not a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) as he had
worked only as a part time employee on an adhoc basis.
The workman A Sankaralingam challenged the award before the madras high

court which was benched by a single Judge.

The Judge observed the fact that as per oral evidence, the workman had worked

for three years till 5 oclock and thus the finding that he had worked for 2 hrs
was wrong
The judge also said that the case per se was not about the workmans plea for

regularization but whether his services had been wrongly terminated ignoring
the procedure envisaged under section 25-F of the ID Act.

The Madras high court quashed the tribunal order and said that the workmen
should be reinstated with full back wages and the decision of regularizing the
employee should be left to the employer in accordance with the law.

The employer not satisfied with the judgement went to the supreme court and
stated that since the employee was a part time worker, he was not entitled to
protection under sec 25F because he did not fulfill the criteria of being a full
time workman and hence did not satisfy the provisions of sec 2(s) and 25B.

The counsel for the workman argued that the sec 2(s) and 25B did not make
any distinction between a part time and permanent workmen and hence
Sankaralingam enjoyed the protection of sec 25F.

Previous cases were referred for arriving at conclusions and in one particular
case- Silver Jubilee Tailoring House case, it was concluded that piece rate
workers working in the shop were also workmen since the employer had not
only the right of directing what the employee had to do but also the manner in
which he had to do the work which was a prima facie evidence of an employeremployee relationship.

The Supreme Court finally gave a verdict in favour of the workmen and said
that a part time worker would be covered within the definition of sec 2(s) of the
act and he would entitled to enjoy the benefits of sec 25B and 25F.

IMPLICATIONS OF THIS VERDICT

This verdict has set a precedent and will help in resolving similar kind of
cases in future where there could be confusion whether a part time
worker is a workman according to the sec 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947.

It will also help in giving part time workers some financial security in
case they are retrenched as they will be eligible for protection under sec
25F of the ID Act provided they satisfy the sec 25B.