From time to time Indian courts have evolved laws related to labour for their betterment and growth. The Indian judiciary has passed various landmark judgments related to labour welfare and protection. Keeping in mind the concept of “welfare state” the courts have tried for equality and well being of workforce so that the spirit of constitution remains active. Some of the judicial decisions related to labour welfare and social security are:

ARTICLE 23 PROHIBITS BEGGAR AND ALL OTHER FORMS OF FORCED LABOUR IN INDIA.

PEOPLE’S UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1982 SC 1473

In this case Supreme Court observed that,

“Labour laws are enacted for improving the conditions of workers and the employers cannot be allowed to buy off immunity against violation of labour laws by paying a paltry fine. If violations of labour laws are going to be punished only by meager fines, it would be impossible to ensure observance of labour laws and the labour laws would be reduced to nullity. They would remain merely paper tigers without any teeth or claws. Violation of labour laws must be viewed with strictness and whenever any violations of labour laws are established the errant employers should be punished by imposing adequate punishments.”

Further the court held,

“it is not merely ‘begar’ which is unconstitutionally prohibited by Art. 23 but also all other similar forms of forced labour. This article strikes at forced in whatever form it may manifest itself, because it is voilative of human dignity and is contrary to basic human values. The practice of forced labour is condemned in almost every international instrument dealing with human rights. Every form of forced labour ‘begar’ or otherwise is within the inhibition of Art. 23 and it makes no difference whether the person who is forced to give his labour or service to another is remunerated or not. Even if remuneration is paid, labour supplied by a person would be hit by this article if it is forced labour, that is, labour supplied not willingly but as a result of force or compulsion.”

CONTRACT LABOUR ACT REGULATES THE WORKING OF CONTRACT LABOURS.

AIR INDIA STATUTORY CORPORATION. VS. UNITED LABOUR UNION AIR 1997 SC 645

In this matter Supreme Court held that,

“contract labour (regulation and abolition) act seeks to achieve a public purpose i.e, regulate conditions of contract labour and to abolish it when it is found to be of perennial nature etc. The judicial function of a court, in interpreting the constitution and provisions of the contract labour (regulation and abolition) act, requires to build up continuity of socio-economic empowerment to the poor to sustain equality of opportunity and status and the law should constantly meet the needs and aspiration of the society in establishing the egalitarian social order.”

NO PERSON SHALL PROVIDE LABOUR OR SERVICE ON PAYMENT OF ANYTHING LESS THAN MINIMUM WAGES.

SANJIT ROY, PETITIONER V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, RESPONDENT AIR 1983 SC 328

In this case Supreme Court provided  that,

“Article 23 mandates that no person shall be required or permitted to provide labour or service to another on payment of anything less than the minimum wages. It cannot be contended that when the state undertakes famine relief work with a view to providing help to persons affected by drought and scarcity conditions, it would be difficult for the state to comply with labour laws, because if the state were required to observe the labour laws, the potential of the state to provide employment to the affected persons would be crippled and the state would not be able to render help to the maximum number of affected persons. The state cannot be permitted to take advantage of the helpless condition of the affected persons and exact labour or service from them on payment of less than the minimum wage. No work of utility and values can be allowed to be constructed on the blood and sweat of persons who are reduced to a state of helplessness on account of drought and scarcity conditions.”

PREAMBLE AND ARTICLE 38 COMMANDS JUSTICE, LIBERTY, EQUALITY AND FERTILITY AS SUPREME VALUES.

CONSUMER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH CENTRE AND OTHERS, PETITIONER V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1995 SC 923

In this case supreme court held that,

“the preamble and article 38 of the constitution of India- the supreme law, envisions social justice as its arch to ensure life to be meaningful and liveable with human dignity.  The constitution commands justice, liberty, equality and fertinity as supreme values to usher in the agalitarian social, economic and political democracy. Social justice, equality, and dignity of persons are corner stones of social democracy. The concept ‘social justice’ which the constitution of India engrafted, consists of diverse principles essential for the orderly growth and development of personality of every citizen.  ‘Social justice’ is thus an integral part of justice in generic sense. Justice is the genus, of which social justice is one of its species. Social justice is a dynamic device to mitigate the sufferings of the poor, weak, dalits, tribals and deprived sections of the society and to elevate them to the level of equality to live a life with dignity of person. Social justice is not a simple or single idea of a society but is an essential part of complex of social change to relieve the poor tec, from handicaps penury to ward off distress and to make their life livable, for greater good of the society at large. In other words, the aim of social justice is to attain substantial degree of social, economic and political equality, which is the legitimate expectation. Social security, just and human condition of work and leisure to workman are part of this meaningful right to life and to achieve self- expression of his personality and enjoy the life with dignity, the state should provide facilities and opportunities to them to reach at least minimum standard of health, economic security and civilized living while sharing according to the capacity, social and cultural heritage.”

Further the court held that,

“Right to health, medical aid to protect the health and vigour to a worker while in service or post retirement is a fundamental right under article 21, read with article 39(e), 41, 43, 48A and all related articles and fundamental human rights to make the life of the workman meaningful and purposeful with dignity of persons”

BY MEHR KAUR