Exemption from Payment of Wages
Exemption from Payment of Wages
News

Govt seeks more time to file reply in Pleas challenging MHA Notification compelling Payment of Wages, SC to hear all Matters Next Week

Debayan Roy

A Supreme Court bench of Justices L Nageshwara Rao, SK Kaul and BR Gavai granted more time to the Central Government to file its response in a batch of petitions challenging the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) notification compelling payment of wages to workers during the period of lockdown.

All the cases have now been slotted for next week.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that he would need time to file a reply to these petitions.

On April 27, the Supreme Court had granted two weeks' time to Centre to put its "policy on record" regarding the MHA notifications directing payment of full salaries to employees during the COVID-19 lockdown.

The court in its order had stated that all the petitioners will "supply copies of their applications to the Solicitor General through e-mail."

The lead petitioner in the case is Ficus Pax, represented by Advocate-on-Record Jeetender Gupta.

The Karnataka-based company had challenged the constitutional validity of a March 20 notification by the Secretary (Labour & Employment) and clause III of the March 29 notification by the MHA, both of which compelled payment of full wages to workers and employees during the period of lockdown.

The petitioner company has submitted that these two notifications were “arbitrary, illegal, irrational, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law including Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.”

Ficus Pax had stated that before the lockdown, it had 176 permanent workers and 939 contract workers across all its factories/warehouses/offices and that it had “paid the wages to all workers including contractual workers for the month of March 2020.”

It was contended that these notifications can turn “an otherwise stable and solvent industrial establishment, especially an MSME establishment, into insolvency and loss of control of business.”

Ludhiana Hand Tools Association, through Advocate-on-Record Rajeev M Roy, stated that the March 29 MHA order under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 300, of the Constitution and that it must be “struck down.”

The petitioner had contended that organisations should be completely exempted from paying their workmen during the lockdown implemented in the wake of novel coronavirus pandemic as,

“one-sided implementation of contract alone is not permitted since relationship between employer and employee consists of reciprocal promises wherein payment can be enforced only against consideration of performing work.”

Advocates Rajeev M Roy, Abhay Nevagi and Jamshed Cama appeared for the petitioners.

The PIL filed by Advocate Aditya Giri was tagged in this order along with other petitions. The plea sought the Court to issue directions to both Central & State Governments to formulate a framework to deal with the problems faced by private sector employees, who have been suddenly laid off due to the lockdown.

Plea by Advocate Giri sought affixation of the liability & accountability of all stakeholders, including the employers for "their dereliction of duty and negligent role in failing to curb laying off of the employees" during this pandemic.

[READ ORDERS]

Ficus Pax Order.pdf
Preview
Ludhiana Hand Tools Order.pdf
Preview
Twin City Industrial Employers Order.pdf
Preview
Rajasthan Steel Chamber order.pdf
Preview
Instruments and Chemicals order.pdf
Preview
NCR Chamber of Commerce & Industry order.pdf
Preview
Teknomin Order.pdf
Preview
Garments exports manufacturing association order.pdf
Preview
Chamber of small industry association order.pdf
Preview
Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news
www.barandbench.com