NEW DELHI: The economic slowdown created by the Covid-19 pandemic does not qualify as an “internal disturbance” threatening state security, the Supreme Court said Thursday as it struck down notifications from the Gujarat government exempting factories from complying with certain obligations towards workers.
The supreme court said that the economic difficulties caused by the pandemic certainly “pose unprecedented challenges” for governance, but these must be resolved by state governments in coordination with the Center.
A bank headed by Judge DY Chandrachud said the notifications, by denying the humane working conditions and overtime wages provided by law, are an “affront” to the workers’ right to life and the right against work. forced.
The high court ruled on a guilty plea that challenged the notifications of April 17 and July 20 issued by the Gujarat government’s labor and employment department to exempt all factories registered under the law from various provisions relating to weekly hours, daily hours and intervals. for the rest of the workers and others.
The court noted in its verdict that the notice under article 5 of the Factories Act, dealing with the power to exempt during a public emergency, was issued on April 17 and its stated objective was to provide certain relaxations for industrial activities and commercials from April 20 to July. 19.
Subsequently, on July 20, another notice was issued that extended the exemption granted until October 19.
The bank, which also includes judges Indu Malhotra and KM Joseph, said that most of the pandemic and the national shutdown has been borne by “the working class and the poorest of the poor” and “deprived of social security, they don’t have backup options. ” ”.
The bank noted that the validity of these notifications depends on whether the Covid-19 pandemic and the closure qualify as a ‘public emergency’ as defined in section 5 of the Act.
“Even if we accept the respondent’s (Gujarat) argument at its highest point, that the pandemic has resulted in an internal disturbance, we find that the economic slowdown created by the Covid-19 pandemic does not qualify as an internal disturbance that threatens the security of the State. The pandemic has placed a serious burden on the existing infrastructure, particularly public health, and has caused a sharp decline in economic activities, “he said.
“The Union Government has resorted to the provisions of the Disaster Management Act 2005. However, it has not affected the security of India or a part of its territory in a way that would disturb the peace and integrity of the country. country”. said the bank.
He said that unless the threshold of an economic hardship is so extreme that it causes a disturbance of public order and threatens the security of India or a part of its territory, these powers cannot be used, which should be “used sparingly” under the law.
He noted that the notifications serve no purpose other than to reduce the overall costs of all factories in the state, regardless of the nature of their manufactured products.
“However, a blanket exemption notice to all factories, regardless of the product manufactured, while denying workers overtime, is indicative of an intention to capitalize on the pandemic to force an already worn social class, into chains. of servitude, ”he said.
He said that the Constitution of India is born from a “transformative vision” that aims to achieve social and economic democracy and labor welfare is an integral element of that vision.
“The need to protect workplace welfare on the one hand and combat a public health crisis caused by the pandemic on the other may require careful balances. But these balances must be in accordance with the rule of law, “he said.
“It cannot be construed as giving free rein to the state to remove provisions that promote dignity and equity in the workplace in the face of new challenges for state administration, unless they have an immediate nexus to ensure state security against the most serious threats, “said the bank.
He referred to the crisis during the pandemic in which several workers were forced to leave their cities of work and return to their places of origin due to the stoppage of production that cut off their meager source of income.
“The notifications in question legitimize the submission of workers to onerous working conditions at a time when their weak bargaining power is undermined by the pandemic,” he said.
“Clad with exceptional powers under section 5, the state cannot allow workers to be exploited in a way that makes illusory the hard-won protections of the Factory Act of 1948 and the constitutional promise of social and economic democracy in tigres de paper, “the bank said.
“The right to life of a worker cannot be considered to depend on the mercy of his employer or the state. The notifications, by denying humane working conditions and overtime established by law, are an affront to the workers’ right to life and the right against forced labor guaranteed by articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution, ”he said. .
In exercise of its extraordinary power under article 142 of the Constitution to do “total justice”, the superior court ordered that overtime be paid in accordance with the provisions of the Factories Act to all eligible workers who have been working from the issuance of notifications.
The supreme court said that the economic difficulties caused by the pandemic certainly “pose unprecedented challenges” for governance, but these must be resolved by state governments in coordination with the Center.
A bank headed by Judge DY Chandrachud said the notifications, by denying the humane working conditions and overtime wages provided by law, are an “affront” to the workers’ right to life and the right against work. forced.
The high court ruled on a guilty plea that challenged the notifications of April 17 and July 20 issued by the Gujarat government’s labor and employment department to exempt all factories registered under the law from various provisions relating to weekly hours, daily hours and intervals. for the rest of the workers and others.
The court noted in its verdict that the notice under article 5 of the Factories Act, dealing with the power to exempt during a public emergency, was issued on April 17 and its stated objective was to provide certain relaxations for industrial activities and commercials from April 20 to July. 19.
Subsequently, on July 20, another notice was issued that extended the exemption granted until October 19.
The bank, which also includes judges Indu Malhotra and KM Joseph, said that most of the pandemic and the national shutdown has been borne by “the working class and the poorest of the poor” and “deprived of social security, they don’t have backup options. ” ”.
The bank noted that the validity of these notifications depends on whether the Covid-19 pandemic and the closure qualify as a ‘public emergency’ as defined in section 5 of the Act.
“Even if we accept the respondent’s (Gujarat) argument at its highest point, that the pandemic has resulted in an internal disturbance, we find that the economic slowdown created by the Covid-19 pandemic does not qualify as an internal disturbance that threatens the security of the State. The pandemic has placed a serious burden on the existing infrastructure, particularly public health, and has caused a sharp decline in economic activities, “he said.
“The Union Government has resorted to the provisions of the Disaster Management Act 2005. However, it has not affected the security of India or a part of its territory in a way that would disturb the peace and integrity of the country. country”. said the bank.
He said that unless the threshold of an economic hardship is so extreme that it causes a disturbance of public order and threatens the security of India or a part of its territory, these powers cannot be used, which should be “used sparingly” under the law.
He noted that the notifications serve no purpose other than to reduce the overall costs of all factories in the state, regardless of the nature of their manufactured products.
“However, a blanket exemption notice to all factories, regardless of the product manufactured, while denying workers overtime, is indicative of an intention to capitalize on the pandemic to force an already worn social class, into chains. of servitude, ”he said.
He said that the Constitution of India is born from a “transformative vision” that aims to achieve social and economic democracy and labor welfare is an integral element of that vision.
“The need to protect workplace welfare on the one hand and combat a public health crisis caused by the pandemic on the other may require careful balances. But these balances must be in accordance with the rule of law, “he said.
“It cannot be construed as giving free rein to the state to remove provisions that promote dignity and equity in the workplace in the face of new challenges for state administration, unless they have an immediate nexus to ensure state security against the most serious threats, “said the bank.
He referred to the crisis during the pandemic in which several workers were forced to leave their cities of work and return to their places of origin due to the stoppage of production that cut off their meager source of income.
“The notifications in question legitimize the submission of workers to onerous working conditions at a time when their weak bargaining power is undermined by the pandemic,” he said.
“Clad with exceptional powers under section 5, the state cannot allow workers to be exploited in a way that makes illusory the hard-won protections of the Factory Act of 1948 and the constitutional promise of social and economic democracy in tigres de paper, “the bank said.
“The right to life of a worker cannot be considered to depend on the mercy of his employer or the state. The notifications, by denying humane working conditions and overtime established by law, are an affront to the workers’ right to life and the right against forced labor guaranteed by articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution, ”he said. .
In exercise of its extraordinary power under article 142 of the Constitution to do “total justice”, the superior court ordered that overtime be paid in accordance with the provisions of the Factories Act to all eligible workers who have been working from the issuance of notifications.
.
