SAMPLE CHAPTER NEW LABOUR CODES - AN OVERVIEW 1. Background of Labour Legislation One of the bad side effects of rapid industrialisation was exploitation of labour. Abnormally long working hours, poor safety conditions, un-hygienic and hazardous working conditions, child labour and total absence of job security were some of the major difficulties faced. Labour was not in a dictating condition. Labour had to accept unfair service conditions as he was always at ‘receiving end’. There was no doubt that labour needed protection and it was necessary to ensure some basic minimum human working conditions. In Bhilwala Dudh Utpadak Sahakari S Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Sharma 2001 LLR 1079 (SC), it was observed that labour statutes were meant to protect the employees/workmen because it was realised that the employers and the employees are not on an equal bargaining position. Hence, protection of employees was required so that they may not be exploited. However, employers cannot be allowed to subterfuge to deny the rights of workmen under different statutes. Various labour laws were passed to protect interests of workmen. Side by side, Trade Union movement also took roots so that workmen can become united and get their legitimate rights. The result is that workers in organised sector are enjoying reasonably good working conditions and job security. In fact, now the pendulum is swinging to ‘other side’ so far as organized sector is concerned. There is a feeling that now managements need ‘protection’ from unreasonable demands from workmen and militant Unions. The most glaring example is that of West Bengal where many industries shifted from that State due to labour troubles, and growth rate of the State was stifled. Crippling and closure of all textile units in Mumbai due to strike by militant labour union in 1982 is another classic example. Luckily, many of Trade Unions have realised futility of this approach, particularly after liberalisation in industrial policies. Trade Unions also have been taking a comparatively balanced view of the matter. 1.1 Management can reorganize business
Management can reorganize and arrange business in the manner it considers best. So long as it is done bona fide, its propriety cannot be questioned. - Parry & Co. v. P C Pal AIR 1970 SC 1334 = 1970(2) LLJ 429 (SC) * Ghatge Patil Employees Union v. Ghatge Patil Transport 1968(1) SCR 300 * D Macro Polo v. Their Employees Union 1958(2) LLJ 492 (SC) * Siemens Ltd. v. Siemens Employees Union 2012 LLR 79 (SC). In Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. Ltd. v. Management AIR 1970 SC 860, it was held that Industrial Tribunal cannot interfere in decision of management in the matter of closing down some of its branches or depots. Such stoppage is purely at the discretion of company carrying on business - quoted with approval in District Red Cross Society v. Babita Arora 2007 LLR 1125 (SC). Management cannot force employee to work in another company - Without consent, workmen cannot be forced to work under different Management, even if terms of employment remain same - Sunil K.R. Ghosh & Ors. v. K. Ram Chandran & Ors. 2012 LLR 76 (SC).
2. Consolidation of Labour Legislation Over the years, there has been proliferation of labour legislation. Numerous labour laws provided for some specific issues. Often, there were duplications and contradictions. Compliance with numerous labour legislation was becoming a big challenge. Need was felt to consolidate numerous labour laws. I-9