Page 143 - DCOM207_LABOUR_LAWS

Labour Laws

Notes “Considering the rise in the earning capacity and spending power, inflation and cost of
living, the monthly wage of workmen is bound to rise and change. Therefore, the maximum
monthly wage of ` 4,000 fixed in the Act is very meagre and requires reconsideration by
way of enhancement or deletion of ceiling fixed under Section 4 (1) Explanation II of the
Act,” the judge observed. He also wondered why labour forums and associations had
missed the implications of the section and had not challenged the provision.

While passing the order, Justice Kirubakaran referred to the January 5 judgment of a two-
judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice
Asok Kumar Ganguly in Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation. The
judges, in separate but concurring judgments, stressed the need to protect the rights of
workers in the liberalised and globalised scenario.

The Madras High Court judgment quotes Justice Singhvi’s observation as follows:
“Of late, there has been a visible shift in the courts’ approach in dealing with the cases
involving the interpretation of social welfare legislation. The attractive mantras of
globalisation and liberalisation are fast becoming the raison d’etre of the judicial process
and an impression has been created that the constitutional courts are no longer sympathetic
towards the plight of industrial and unorganised workers. In large number of cases like the
present one, relief has been denied to the employees falling in the category of workmen, who
are illegally retrenched from service by creating bylanes and sidelanes in the jurisprudence
developed by this court in three decades.”
“The stock plea raised by the public employer in such cases is that the initial employment/
engagement of the workman-employee was contrary to some or the other statute or that
reinstatement of the workman will put unbearable burden on the financial health of the
establishment. The courts have readily accepted such plea unmindful of the accountability
of the wrongdoer and indirectly punished the tiny beneficiary of the wrong, ignoring the
fact that he may have continued in the employment for years together and that micro
wages earned by him may be the only source of his livelihood. It needs no emphasis that if
a man is deprived of his livelihood, he is deprived of all his fundamental and constitutional
rights….”
“Therefore, the approach of the courts must be compatible with the constitutional
philosophy of which the Directive Principles of State Policy constitute an integral part,
and justice due to the workman should not be denied by entertaining the specious and
untenable grounds put forward by the employer – public or private.”
Justice Kirubakaran also referred to the observation of Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly, that
the court “has a duty to interpret statutes with social welfare benefits in such a way as to
further the statutory goal and not to frustrate it. In doing so, this court should make an
effort to protect the rights of the weaker sections of society in view of the clear constitutional
mandate discussed above.” He further said that while awarding compensation under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, factors such as disability, loss of income, pain and suffering, loss
of love and affection, loss of consortium, loss of damage to clothes and property and loss of
estate are considered whereas under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, disability alone is
considered for the purpose of calculating the loss of income.
Stressing the need to revamp the Workmen’s Compensation Act on a par with the Motor
Vehicles Act, he said “… an ‘injury’ sustained is always an ‘injury’ and the ‘pain’ suffered
is ‘pain’ with all elements and there cannot be any difference whether the victim gets relief
under either of the Acts”. Praising the judgment, A.K. Padmanabhan, president of the Tamil
Nadu unit of the CITU, said very rarely had a judgment of this type been awarded by the
Supreme Court or the High Courts. He described the High Court order and the judgment
of the two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court as “exceptional” and said he hoped they
would not continue to be exceptions for too long. Contd...

138 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY