Labour law is the diverse body of legislation that governs issues such as employment, wages, working conditions, trade unions, and industrial relations. In its broadest definition, the phrase encompasses both social security and disability insurance. Unlike contract, tort, or property law, the elements of labour law are less homogenous than the rules regulating a specific legal relationship. In addition to the individual contractual relationships that arise from the traditional employment situation, labour law addresses the statutory requirements and collective relationships that are becoming increasingly important in mass-production societies, the legal relationships that exist between organized economic interests and the state, and the various rights and obligations associated with certain types of social services.
The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, India’s new mental health legislation, went into effect on May 29, 2018, and strives to specifically comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It gives nearly 1.3 billion individuals, or one-sixth of the world’s population, a legally mandated access to mental healthcare.
Key measures include:
(a) new definitions of ‘mental illness’ and ‘mental health establishment’;
(b) revised consideration of ‘capacity’ in relation to mental healthcare;
(c) ‘advance directives’ to allow persons with mental illnesses to direct future care;
(d) ‘nominated representatives’, who do not have to be family members;
(e) the right to mental healthcare and broad social rights for the mentally ill; and
(f) the establishment of governmental authorities
(g) Mental Health Review Boards to review admissions and other matters;
(h) revised procedures for ‘independent admission’ (voluntary admission),’supported admission’ (admission and treatment without patient consent), and ‘admission of minor’;
(i) revised treatment, restraint, and research rules; and
(j) de facto decriminalization of suicide. The key challenges are resourcing both mental health services and the new structures proposed in the legislation, the appropriateness of seemingly increasingly legalized approaches to care (particularly the implications of potentially lengthy judicial proceedings), and the possibility of paradoxical effects resulting in barriers to care (e.g., revised licensing requirements for general hospital psychiatry units).
There is continuous debate concerning policies (for example, the prohibition on electro-convulsive treatment without muscle relaxants and anaesthesia), indicating the importance of continual interaction with stakeholders such as patients, families, the Indian Psychiatric Society, and non-governmental organizations. Despite these obstacles, the new legislation has significant potential benefits not just for India, but also for other nations seeking to align their laws with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and better the condition of the mentally ill.
WHO is dedicated to enhancing workplace mental health. The World Health Organization’s worldwide strategy on health, environment, and climate change, as well as the WHO Comprehensive mental health action plan (2013-2030), establish appropriate concepts, objectives, and implementation methods to promote good mental health in the workplace. Addressing socioeconomic determinants of mental health, such as living standards and working circumstances; eliminating stigma and prejudice; and improving access to evidence-based care through health service development, including access to occupational health services, are examples of these initiatives. The workplace was mentioned as a prominent example of a setting where transformational action on mental health is needed in WHO’s World mental health report: improving mental health for all in 2022.
The WHO guidelines on mental health at work include evidence-based recommendations for promoting mental health, preventing mental health disorders, and allowing individuals living with mental health conditions to participate and flourish at work. Organizational interventions, management and worker training, individual interventions, return to work, and acquiring employment are all included in the suggestions. The associated WHO and ILO policy brief, Mental health at work: policy brief, provides a practical framework for implementing the WHO guidelines. It outlines what governments, employers, organizations representing employers and employees, and other stakeholders may do to enhance workplace mental health.
Most states have rules in place to compensate workers for any injuries sustained while on the job. A “personal injury” is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as “any harm or damage to the health of an employee, however caused, whether by accident, disease, or otherwise, which arises in the course and out of his employment, and incapacitates him in whole or in part.” [1] Compensation is often based on unique legislation that give employees with exclusive redress for job injuries. Tort claims are the second option for workers and employees if this is not accessible.
The breadth of the rights has been broadly construed throughout time, widening the notion of “injury, loss, disability, or harm” incurred as a result of employment. Even the ideas of “employment” and “workplace” have expanded significantly over time. These beliefs have shifted as a result of the legislation’s positive character, which helps to secure maximum benefit for employees and workers. Because compensation law in employment situations is a hybrid of state statute law and common law, the safeguards offered differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
According to a 2015 poll performed by Assocham, roughly 42.5% of private sector employees in India suffer from depression or anxiety related illnesses as a result of working stress. The emergence of the coronavirus pandemic has further exacerbated the issue. As a result, it is critical that organizations make proper accommodations for their employees’ mental health and well-being, as this impacts employee productivity and results in a loss of around $100 million each year.
There is a lacuna in India’s legislative framework that handles mental health disorders or injuries originating from or during employment. While laws such as the Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016 provide for remedies that can be sought by persons suffering from any form of mental illness or disability, there is a lack of legislative provisions or judicial precedents that recognize mental health considerations from an employment standpoint. This practically means that anyone suffering from a mental disorder as a result of any aspect related to their profession would have no recourse.
According to Article 21 of the Constitution, “no person shall be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law.” The scope of Article 21 has been expanded throughout time in response to societal requirements, such that it now includes a person’s mental health. The Mental Health Act of 2017, An Act to provide for mental healthcare and services for people with mental illnesses, as well as to safeguard, promote, and fulfill their rights while receiving mental healthcare and services, and for issues related with or incidental to that.
However, it is important to stress that the Act is unable to execute its tasks in reducing mental health problems in the workplace. Furthermore, there is a mismatch between societal requirements and regulations. In the case of Rattan Chand Hira Chand v. Askar Nawaz Jung, the Supreme Court stated that “the legislature frequently fails to keep pace with changing needs and values, nor is it realistic to expect that it will have provided for all contingencies and eventualities.” As a result, it is not only essential but also compulsory for the Courts to step in and fill the void.
The immediate reason for bringing this case is an alleged suicide perpetrated by a family in a Chandrikapur district. That event is the subject of a separate criminal proceeding, and we will not discuss it further here. The occurrences show the dangers to which working-class people may be exposed and must be protected by an alternative mechanism in the absence of legal measures. The requirement is to establish an effective alternative mechanism to meet this perceived societal need.
Economic, social, and cultural hurdles impede mental health care in the state. An estimated 7% of the population suffers from mental health problems, with 80% of them not receiving treatment. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and the right to personal liberty. The term “life” as guaranteed by Article 21 does not simply refer to animal existence or continued drudgery throughout life; it has a much broader meaning that includes the right to a livelihood, a better standard of living, sanitary conditions in the workplace and leisure, and opportunities to eliminate sickness and physical disability among workers. It encompasses the quality of life as defined by the constitution in terms of richness and completeness, and every individual with a mental illness has the right to live and work in the community as much as feasible.
“Right to health, medical aid to protect a worker’s health and vigor while in service or after retirement is a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Articles 39 (e), 41, 43, 48-A of the Shalvak Constitution and a fundamental human right to make workmen’s lives meaningful and purposeful with dignity of persons.” Security against disease and disability is a basic right enshrined in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 7 (b) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, and Articles 39 (e), 38, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.” The right to mental integrity comprises the right to personal honour and image and includes the Right to Privacy.
The Factories Act, 1948 lays down the provisions for ensuring the safety, health and welfare if workers in factories. It mandates that every factory must have proper ventilation, lighting, drinking water and sanitation facilities. The act also specifies the maximum number of working hours per day, weekly holiday, and annual leave with wages.
The act is also closely related to mental health regulations as it requires factories to provide a safe and healthy working which includes a safe and healthy working environment, which includes atmosphere free from mental stress. The constant pressure, long working hours, and the nature of work can lead to stress, anxiety, and depression in workers, which in turn hampers their productivity and well being. Thus, the act aims to prevent such situations by ensuring the factories comply with safety and welfare measures. However, there is a huge gap between application of the law and the legislation.
Mental health is often seen as a taboo in the state, and as a result, many individuals go untreated. Even in the workplace, individuals are mistreated, and there is a great possibility that they will be subjected to mental harassment. Health includes not just bodily well-being but also social and emotional well-being, and the right to health is thus a basic right of workers.
Thriving at Work: The UK Perspective
The United Kingdom has recognized the need of addressing mental health concerns comprehensively. According to a recent research, 39% of employees suffered mental health concerns at work or as a result of employment between 2018 and 2019. Due to workplace-related mental health concerns, the vast majority have felt obligated to continue “suffering in silence.” Because of these stark facts, there is a strong push for employers to treat mental diseases on par with physical illnesses, and to implement appropriate preventative and therapeutic measures when such work-related disorders occur.
Because of the seriousness of this issue, the UK government commissioned an independent evaluation that focused on the mental health care that companies may give. This culminated in the ‘Thriving at Work’ report, which established ‘Core Standards’ for companies to implement. This action plan was created to help companies improve the mental health of their employees. This involves developing a mental health at work strategy and establishing a method to track activities and outcomes in the workplace. Such preventative approaches might be beneficial in boosting the general well-being of employees at work. It is heartening that the government has adopted some of these ideas and has proposed concrete initiatives that companies and government agencies alike may use to assist achieve this aim. There are also various toolkits available to help companies select the appropriate policy for their company.
Hatton v. Sutherland established the criteria for employer responsibility for mental disease caused by occupational stress. The exam focuses on predictability and is based on what the company knows or should know about the specific employee. Unless the employee makes particular disclosures to the contrary, the employer might infer that the employee can sustain the typical wear and tear of the job. Furthermore, this presumption applies regardless of the type of job performed: no industry is seen particularly harmful in this regard. Relevant variables in establishing foreseeability include the type and scope of the employee’s activity, the reasonability of demands put on the worker, the industry standard for the provided task, degree of sickness and absenteeism among workers of the department, and indicators from the employee of approaching harm to health.
The employer is not required to conduct extensive investigations to guarantee that the employee does not suffer from a mental disease. However, this might be detrimental to the employee because they frequently try to conceal mental disorders owing to the stigma associated with them and for fear of making an unfavourable impression on their employer. This might jeopardize an employee’s claim for compensation for job-related injuries since the foreseeability standard would not be met. This happened in the recent case of Easton v. B&Q.
Furthermore, according to Easton, the employer is solely accountable for the degree of the injury caused by its conduct. Pre-existing diseases and vulnerabilities would be included in calculating damages. The former, on the other hand, is not always easy to define or pinpoint; the “tipping point,” as it were. When indicators of potential injury originating from employment that would be obvious to any reasonable employer exist, the employer is also obligated to take reasonable actions to reduce and avoid harm to employees. A contextual review of the circumstances of each case would establish the standard to be used.
Attributing Causation: Taking Cue from the US
In the United States, two key criteria have emerged to identify employer responsibility in circumstances of gradual stress, i.e., when a disease or injury develops gradually as a result of working stress. The unusual-stress test and the objective causal-connection test are two of them.
The unusual-stress test included harm caused by events that would not ordinarily occur in regular life. As a result, in order to be compensated, the mental impairment must have occurred from a scenario that was more unusual than the day-to-day pressures encountered by all employees. The evidentiary requirement here is that the workplace pressures must be visible enough to leave little room for question that they exist.
Courts noted in adopting the causal-connection test that the great majority of workers suffer with occupational stress on a regular basis, and that it was only fair that such stress be recognized as a cause of compensable injuries. [6] First, it must be demonstrated that stressful conditions exist on the work. The presence of a legal cause of stress-related occupational sickness must be objectively determined. Second, it must be demonstrated that, as compared to non-employment situations, the employment conditions were the primary contributing cause of the mental illness. This does not imply that the damage was primarily caused or exacerbated by work circumstances, but that these factors outweighed all others. This test is often seen as desirable since it is a less onerous criteria to meet and can help a greater number of impacted workers.
CONCLUSION
In 2019, the government launched the Occupational Safety, Health, and Working Conditions Code Bill, which intends to consolidate 13 laws governing employee health and safety. It includes several steps to ensure workplace safety, such as safety officers stationed in dangerous work areas and other welfare amenities.
While this is a commendable endeavour to provide safer and healthier workplaces, the Code lacks any provision that directly addresses mental health concerns that arise as a result of or during the course of employment.
Because the Bill is still being debated, it would be a good law to account for mental health issues in the workplace, ensuring that various components of employee safety and well-being are established in the specific text of the statute. As a result, the legislature may consider remedy such as compensation to bring mental health difficulties and injuries on par with the treatment of physical diseases and other impairments. The objective causal-connection test, as well as references to relevant elements defined in English case law, can be utilized to determine the same. This will improve judicial uniformity in establishing the legitimacy of claims and serve to better safeguard the labor force. This will improve judicial uniformity in establishing the legitimacy of claims and serve to better safeguard the labor force. Furthermore, clear guidance for preventative actions based on an objective evaluation of workplace circumstances must be given, similar to steps conducted in the UK to assist resolve the mental health problem.
Author Bio
