Supreme Court said no coercive measure could be taken against employers who could not pay full wages
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court extended today until June 12 the application of its May 15 order asking the government not to take any coercive action against companies and employers for violation of its circular of March 29 on the payment of wages full to employees for the lockout period.
The Ministry of the Interior (MHA), in its circular, had asked all employers to pay their workers’ wages without any deduction during the period of closure of their establishments during the foreclosure to contain COVID-19.
The secretary (Labor and employment) had also written to the chief state secretaries advising employers not to fire their employees or to reduce their wages in the difficult context of the pandemic.
A bench of judges Ashok Bhushan, SK Kaul and MR Shah expressed concern about the MHA circular, stating that 100 percent salary payment was ordered with the directive that there would be lawsuits against them. offending employers.
“We have reservations about this. Discussions should take place to find a solution for this period of time,” said the bench, adding that a balance must be found between paying wages for the lockout period and the protection of industries.
“The state may have to lend a hand to owners of small industries. Negotiations must be held industry to industry, workers to workers,” said the bench while reserving the verdict on a batch of petitions.
In proceedings conducted by videoconference, the bench stated that there was a concern that workers should not be left without pay, but there could be a situation where the industry might not have the money to pay and , therefore, balance was necessary.
Attorney General KK Venugopal, who appeared for the Center, said that when people migrate after the lockout, the government has sent a notification to ensure workers are paid to help them stay at work.
The senior legal officer referred to the provisions of the National Law on Disaster Management to assert the validity of the circular of March 29.
The judiciary asked the Center if it had the power to prosecute employers for non-payment of 100 per cent of wages to employees, since certain provisions of the Labor Dispute Law had not been invoked.
“Certain negotiations must take place between employers and workers to determine what to do for wages for these 54 (lockout) days,” he observed.
One of the companies, Ficus Pax, said that the company’s work had dropped to ten percent and that it had become impossible to pay full wages.
The government could have used the ESI fund to pay the entire minimum wage to all workers in the country, a lawyer said.
Venugopal responded by saying that money can be borrowed from the ESI fund, but cannot be redirected to pay workers.
Lead counsel Indira Jaising, who appeared in one of the cases, said that the MHA directive should not be canceled and that workers should be paid full wages during the lockout period.
The principle of no work, no pay is not applicable in the current circumstances, especially in the event of a lockout, she said.
At the end of the hearing, the tribunal de grande instance asked the parties to file written observations in support of their claims and granted the Attorney General three days to submit a short note on the validity of the MHA notification.
The Center also filed an affidavit substantiating its March 29 direction, stating that employers alleging inability to pay wages should be required to provide their balance sheets and audited accounts to the court.
The government has declared that the March 29 directive is a “temporary measure to alleviate financial hardship” for employees and workers, especially contract and casual workers, during the lockout period and that the instructions have been revoked by the authority with effect from May 18.
On May 15, the highest court had asked the government not to take any coercive measures against companies and employers who are unable to pay their full wages to their employees during the closure of the country due to the coronavirus pandemic.
The bench heard arguments, including one filed by the Small Scale Industrial Manufacturers Association against the Centre’s directive.
(With the exception of the title, this story was not edited by GalacticGaming staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
