PIL in SC challenges labour law changes by BJP-ruled states

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, May 14

As various BJP-ruled states change labour laws during COVID19 crisis to attract investment, a journalist from Jharkhand on Thursday moved the Supreme Court seeking quashing of their alleged anti-workmen and anti-poor decisions.

Exercising their powers under section 5 of the Factories Act, 1948, governments of UP, MP and Gujarat granted certain exemptions to industries, including extending the maximum working hours from 8 to 12 hours a day and from 48 to 72 hours per week.

The exemption enabled industries to hire only those willing to work for 12 hours a day instead of 8 hours and that too without liability to pay over-time wages for the extra four hours, petitioner Pankaj Kumar Yadav said, urging the top court to stay the decisions.

Terming the move as “illegal for denying equal protection of law to the poor workmen without following the due process established by law”, Yadav contended the changes violated Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution.

He said the state governments exercised the power conferred under section 5 the Factories Act to the detriment of poor workmen on the premise of facilitating economic activities.

The power to exempt would be available to a state government only in case of such “Public Emergency” as explained in the said section itself and not in any other circumstance.

“However, various state governments exercised the powers under aforesaid section 5 of the Factories Act, 1948 by equating the current Pandemic “COVID-19” situation as a “Public Emergency”, despite absence of any exception in the aforesaid pre-constitution statutory provision,” Yadav said in his petition.

Contending that various statutes constituting “Labour Laws” were benevolent laws aimed to protect the “Oppressed Class”, he alleged that in the present circumstances, the State was depriving the “Oppressed Class” from the welfare measures available to them in order to facilitate the “Oppressor Class”.

He said such decisions had been taken at a time when the poor workmen were worst hit by COVID-19 lockdown, losing their livelihood and compelled to live at the mercy of God.

Noting that he entire world was passing through the most difficult times, Yadav said, “…a Welfare State cannot be expected to force its least fortunate and most oppressed citizens into further miseries on the pretext of facilitating economic activities/development by taking away their existing rights to their detriment and for the advantage of more fortunate citizens.”

He sought to highlight the fact that lakhs of workers lost their livelihood during COVID19 lockdown. “Under such circumstances, the withdrawal of welfare measures from the labourers/workmen as a whole would lead to their further miseries and exploitation at the hands of their employers, who are being exempted from the statutory liabilities to look after the welfare of their employees” Yadav submitted.