INTRODUCTION TO
LABOUR LAW
EVOLUTION
EARLY STAGE OF
INDUSTRIALIZATION WELFARE STATE
State
Freedom of intervention to
Contract protect rights of
workers
Employer-
Master-Servant
relationship employee
relationship
Labour as Security to
Commodity workers
Check on
Hire and fire
policy employer’s
exploitation
Demand and Collective
supply status
Individual Constitution
status of tribunals
NEED FOR LABOUR LAWS
PROTECTION
HEALTH WELFARE SAFETY AGAINST
EXPLOITATION
REQUIREMENT
PROTECTION RECOGNIZING OF NEW
AGAINST UNFAIR RIGHT OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING REMEDIES AND
DISMISSALS WORKMEN
RELIEFS
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
• Deals with relationship between labour and
management, and their organization COOPERATION CONFLICT
• Economic progress is dependent on industrial
harmony
• Role of State
GROWTH OF
EMPLOYEE INDUSTRIAL
JURISPRUDENCE
EMPLOYER STATE
EVOLUTION OF
DEMOCRATIC
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT BIRTH OF ILO
INSTITUTIONS
LABOUR
LAW
SOURCES
LEGISLATIVE JUDGE MADE
CONSTITUTION
ENACTMENTS LAW
NEW LABOUR CODES
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SOCIAL SECURITY
PASSED
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, HEALTH
WAGES
AND WORKING CONDITIONS
NATURE OF LABOUR LAW
■ Contracting-out not permitted
■ Tribunal can create new obligations on employers and employees,
through the award it passes
■ Procedural laws are not strictly applicable except for summoning of
parties, etc.
CAGTEGORIES OF
EMPLOYEES
EMPLOYEES IN
GOVERNMENT
GOVERNMENT
CONTROLLED PRIVATE SECTOR
EMPLOYEES CORPORATE BODIES/
PSUs
MANAGEMENT STAFF
WORKMEN
SOCIAL JUSTICE
■ Socio-economic equality
■ Removal of socio-economic disparities
■ Finding just, fair and reasonable solutions for both parties
■ Establishing harmonious relations between labour and management
■ Need not always be in favour of workers
CONSTITUTIONAL
PERSPECTIVE
ARTICLE 14
■ Equal pay for equal work – read with Article 39 (d) – for both men and women
Randhir Singh v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 879
Court held that principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ although not expressly declared
as a fundamental right is certainly a constitutional goal. Principle of ‘equal pay for equal
work’ is deducible from Articles 14 and 16, in the light of the Preamble and Article 39
(d), and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no
classification or irrational classification, though these drawing different scales of pay do
identical work under the same employer.
Petition allowed.
ARTICLE 16
■ ‘Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment’
■ Confined to employment or appointment to an office ‘under the State’
ARTICLE 19
■ Right to demonstration
Kameshwar Prasad v State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 1166
High Court held that freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 (a), (b), and (c) did not
include right to resort to a strike or right to demonstrate so far as government servants
were concerned. Dismissed petition. Appeal filed before Supreme Court.
Supreme Court held – peaceful orderly demonstrations cannot be prohibited
■ Right to form unions
ARTICLE 21
People’s Union for Democratic Rights v UoI AIR 1982 SC 1473 (Asiad
Case)
Violation of labour laws should be dealt with strictness and errant employers should be
punished by imposing adequate punishment.
Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1986 SC 180
Right to life includes right to livelihood
ARTICLE 23
■ ‘Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour’
■ Protects individuals not only against the State but also against other private citizens
■ Even if remuneration is paid, labour supplied by a person would be hit by this Article,
if the labour is being done unwillingly or as a result of force or compulsion
■ ‘Force’ – may be physically compelling a person to provide labour – force exerted
through legal provision such as imprisonment/ fine – compulsion arising from
hunger/ poverty
■ ‘Asiad Case’
ARTICLE 24
■ Prohibition of employment of children below 14 years in factories or any other
hazardous employment
DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE
POLICY
■ Article 39
■ Article 41 – Right to work
■ Article 42 – Just and humane conditions of work
■ Article 43 – Secure to all workers work, living wage, conditions of work, decent
standard of life
■ Article 43 A – Participation of workers in management of industries
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATION
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra
AIR 1957 SC 264
■ Appellants were lessees holding a license for the manufacture of salt by a class of
professional labourers known as ‘agariyas’.
■ Work was seasonal in nature. Agariyas who worked themselves with the members of their
families were free to engage extra labour on their own account and the appellants had no
concern therewith. No hours of work were prescribed, no muster rolls maintained, nor were
working hours controlled by the appellants. There were no rules as regards leave or holidays
and the agarias were free to go out of the factory after making arrangements for the
manufacture of salt.
■ Question – Whether there is an employer-employee relation?
■ Held - Prima facie test of such relationship was the existence of the right in the employer not
merely to direct what work was to be done but also to control the manner in which it was to
be done, the nature or extent of such control varying in different industries and being by its
nature incapable of being precisely defined. The correct approach, therefore, was to consider
whether, having regard to the nature of the work, there was due control and supervision of
the employer.
■ Agariyas were held to be workmen.
Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd. v. State of Tamil
Nadu
AIR 2004 SC 1639
■ Well-settled principle of law that the person who sets up a plea of existence of
relationship of employer and employee, the burden would be upon him.
■ Control test and the organization test are not the only factors which can be said to
decisive.
■ The court is required to consider several factors which would have a bearing on the
result :
– (a) who is appointing authority;
– (b) who is the pay master;
– (c) who can dismiss;
– (d) how long alternative service lasts;
– e) the extent of control and supervision;
– (f) the nature of the job, e.g. whether, it is professional or skilled work;
– (g) nature of establishment;
– (h) the right to reject.
Officer in Charge, Sub Regional Provident Fund Office and
Another v. M/s Godavari Garments Limited
(2019) 8 SCC 149
■ Company engaged women workers who were provided with cut fabric, thread, buttons, etc. to be
made into garments at their own homes. The sewing machines used by the women workers
were owned by them. They worked from their homes, and not at the production centers of the
Company. Women workers were not bound to report to the production centers regularly, nor
were they required to work at the production centers.
■ The women workers could stitch the garments at their homes, and provide them to the
Company, which had the absolute right to reject the finished product i.e. the garments, in case
of any defects.
■ Show Cause Notice was issued to the Company calling upon it to pay the Provident Fund
contributions for the women workers.
■ Company contended that these women workers were not their employees. Even though wages
were paid to them, they were not liable to receive PF.
■ Court observed that the employer's right to reject the end product if it does not conform to the
instructions of the employer speaks for the element of control and supervision. So also the right
of removal of the workman or not to give the work has the element of control and supervision.
■ Company was directed to deposit the amount towards Provident Fund.
