Page 69 - DMGT306_MERCANTILE_LAWS_II

Mercantile Laws – II

Notes court upheld the decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour that the claimant was a
“workman” who suffered injuries during the course of employment and confirmed his
award fixing the compensation at 4,34,650. The Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU)
and the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) have welcomed the judgment. Recalling
that the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, has its origins in the colonial period like
many other primary and major Acts, the court pointed out that but for “cosmetic
amendments”, the main statement of object and reasons for the enactment of the law
remained the same. The object of the piece of legislation was to compensate for injuries
arising out of accidents during the course of employment and resulting in disablement or
death, the judge pointed out. He said that as the object was very laudable and the legislation
had been enacted for the benefit of workmen, there should not have been a ceiling on the
monthly wage of workers at 4,000.
“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 meager 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
Ashok 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 by lanes and side lanes 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 Ashok Kumar Ganguly,
that the court “has a duty to interpret statutes with social welfare benefits in such a way as
Contd....

64 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY