INTRODUCTION
Judicial Activism refers to a judicial philosophy or approach where judges interpret laws and the constitution in a way that goes beyond traditional legal analysis and actively seeks to bring about social changes. In the context of labour law, judicial activism can manifest in judges interpreting labour laws in a way that supports worker’s rights and protections, even if such interpretations go beyond the letter of the law.
Judicial activism in labour law has been seen in various cases, such as those dealing with the rights of workers to form and join unions, the protection of workers’ health and safety, and the regulation of employment practices. For example, in the United States, the Supreme Court’s decision in National Labour Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937) upheld the constitutionality of the National Labour Relations Act, which protects workers’ right to organize and bargain collectively. This decision represented a significant expansion of federal power over labour relations and is an example of judicial activism in support of workers’ right.
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN CONTEXT OF LABOUR WELFARE
Judicial activism refers to the tendency of judges to interpret and apply the law in a way that goes beyond the traditional bounds of legal interpretation. In the context of labour welfare, judicial activism can be seen as a means of using the law to protect the rights and interests of workers, even if this requires interpreting the law in a more expansive way.
When it comes to labour welfare, judicial activism has often played a crucial role in protecting the rights of workers and ensuring that they receive fair treatment and compensation from their employers. For example, in cases where workers have been unfairly dismissed or denied compensation for work-related injuries, the courts have often stepped in to provide relief and ensure that justice is served.
One example of judicial activism in the context of labour welfare is the use of the doctrine of ‘fairness’ in employment law. This doctrine, which has been developed by courts in many jurisdictions, requires employers to act fairly towards their employees in all aspects of employment, including in the provision of wages, benefits, and working conditions. By using this doctrine, courts can require employers to provide better working conditions and benefits to their employees, even if there is no explicit legal requirement to do so.
Another example of judicial activism in the context of labour welfare is the use of the concept of ‘constitutional morality’ in interpreting labour laws. Constitutional morality refers to the values and principles that underlie the Constitution, such as the protection of human dignity, equality, and social justice. By interpreting labour laws in light of these values and principles, courts can require employers to act in a way that is consistent with the broader goals of the Constitution, including the protection of workers’ rights and interests.
MEASURES TAKEN BY INDIAN JUDICIARY IN LABOUR WELFARE
The Indian judiciary has taken several initiatives to implement and enforce labour laws in the country. Some of these initiatives include:
Strict Interpretation of Labour Laws: The Indian judiciary has adopted a strict interpretation of labour laws and has been proactive in ensuring that employers comply with these laws. For instance, the judiciary has been quick to penalize employers who violate minimum wage laws or fail to provide benefits to workers under the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) and other labour laws.
Legal Aid: The Indian judiciary has also taken several initiatives to provide legal aid and assistance to workers who are unable to afford legal representation. Several free legal aid programs have been established to help workers understand their rights and obtain redress in case of labour law violations.
Guidelines for Employers: The judiciary has also issued several guidelines for employers to ensure compliance with labour laws. For instance, the Supreme Court of India has issued guidelines for the effective implementation of minimum wage laws and for the prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace.
Speedy Redressal of Labour Disputes: The Indian judiciary has taken steps to expedite the resolution of labour disputes. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides for the establishment of labour courts and industrial tribunals to resolve disputes related to wages, employment conditions, and other labour-related matters.
Protection of Workers’ Rights: The judiciary has also been proactive in protecting workers’ rights. For instance, the Supreme Court has issued several orders to protect the rights of workers in the unorganized sector and to prevent the exploitation of child labour.
Overall, the Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in implementing and enforcing labour laws in the country, and has taken several initiatives to protect the rights of workers and ensure compliance with labour laws.
CONCLUSION
Judicial activism has also played an important role in shaping labour laws and policies. For instance, in several countries, courts have used their power of judicial review to strike down laws that violate workers’ rights or are discriminatory in nature. In doing so, they have helped to establish important precedents and principles that have guided future legislative and policy decisions.
However, some critics argue that judicial activism can be problematic in the context of labour welfare, as it may be perceived as interfering with the policymaking authority of the legislative and executive branches. They argue that judges should be more deferential to these branches of government and should limit their role to interpreting laws rather than actively shaping them.
In summary, judicial activism can play an important role in protecting the rights of workers and shaping labour laws and policies. However, it is important for judges to strike a balance between their duty to uphold the constitution and their obligation to respect the policymaking authority of the other branches of government.
Author Bio
