Background of Labour Law in India
The “Concurrent List” of the Indian Constitution includes “Labour” as a topic, giving both the Central and State governments the ability to make laws, with some issues being reserved for the Central Government.
In addition to establishing and managing services for vocational skill training and employment, the Ministry of Labour and Employment seeks to advance and defend the interests of workers generally and those who comprise the underprivileged, disadvantaged, and marginalised segments of society in particular. The government is concentrating on developing welfare programmes and offering social security to the workers in both the organised and unorganised sectors in addition to the liberalisation process. Several labour regulations that regulate the conditions of employees’ service and employment are being adopted and put into effect in order to achieve these aims.
Supremacy of Constitution
In the Minerva Mills case, the Hon’ble Apex Court of India categorically held that not only the government, legislature, and executive, but also the judiciary is bound by the principles that are born out or laid out in the Constitution, and in no way can anyone be above and beyond the Constitution. This is significant when discussing the constitutional supremacy in India. The Supreme Court said this and then correctly observed and implemented the fundamental structure concept of the Indian Constitution.1
Based on what has been said above, it is clear that there are restrictions on how labour laws can be interpreted, and that these restrictions must be interpreted in a way that does not in any way violate the values embodied in the Indian Constitution.
Thus, it has been correctly ruled that the provisions of the Labour Laws must be interpreted to imply that all other legislation, aside from that proclaimed in the Constitution, must fall within the legislative values accorded to those specific provisions in the Constitution, and that if other legislation is in conflict with such values, it must be overturned. It will be declared that the law is invalid. Therefore, both of these requirements are essential parts of ensuring that the fundamental principles of the Constitution are taken into account.
A sociological, judicial and other perspective on India
There are over fifty national laws that regulate labour in India, and there are many more at the state level. For instance, a permanent employee can only be let go for demonstrable misconduct or abusing leave privileges.2 In the Uttam Nakate case3, the Bombay High Court held that terminating an employee for sleeping on the factory floor was illegal. Two decades later, the Supreme Court of India overturned that decision. In 2008, the World Bank attacked Indian regulations for their complexity, antiquated nature, and lack of adaptability.
The 1950-dated Indian Constitution’s articles 14–16, 19(1)(c), 23–24, 38, and 41–43A all specifically address employment rights. In accordance with Articles 14, 15, and 16, the government is prohibited from discriminating against anybody. In addition, Article 16 creates a right to “equality of opportunity” for public employment or appointment. According to Article 19(1)(c), everyone has the right “to create organisations or unions.” Articles 23 and 24 prohibit child work in mines, factories, and “any other hazardous employment” for anyone under the age of 14. Article 23 prohibits all types of human trafficking and forced labour.
Because of what has been said thus far, it is clear that the implementation of labour regulations in India was done so in order to close social disparities in the Indian society. As a result, while interpreting such laws, one must make sure that the interpretation does not in any way damage society’s social fabric. Since anything contrary to this would defeat the very purpose for which the laws were introduced, one must therefore adopt a very liberal viewpoint when interpreting such laws.
Articles 38-39 and 41-43A, like other rights specified in Part IV of the Constitution, do not provide the State an aspirational “obligation to apply these principles in formulating laws,” but rather, they do not give courts the authority to enforce them. Although these concepts have since generated controversy, the original justification for not allowing the courts to enforce them was that democratically accountable organisations should be given latitude given the demands they might make on the government in terms of general tax revenue. In accordance with Article 38(1), the government is required to “strive to promote the welfare of the people” by creating a “social order in which social, economic, and political fairness inform all aspects of national life.” Article 38(2) states that the state must “minimise the inequalities in income” and based on all other statuses. The “right to work” guaranteed by Article 41 is intended to be implemented via the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act of 2005. The government is required by Article 42 to “make provisions for providing reasonable and humane working conditions, as well as maternity assistance.” According to Article 43, workers should have the right to a livable wage and “work conditions providing a fair standard of living.” 4 A constitutional right to codetermination is established by Article 43A of the Indian Constitution, which was approved by the Forty-second Amendment in 1976. This provision requires the government to pass legislation to “ensure the involvement of employees in the administration of undertakings.” 5
The aforementioned information helps us grasp the obligations placed on the state by the Constitution. As a result, it is expected that the State’s stance would be consistent with the obligations placed on it by the Constitutional Provisions. Therefore, it is necessary to interpret the labour laws under the presumption that the state’s goal was to carry out and facilitate the obligations placed upon it.
A Clearer understanding of the judiciary’s ability to interpret law and consequently create laws
“Iudicis est ius dicere sed non dare/facere” — the judge’s jurisdiction is to expound the law, not to make it.
The maxim previously cited cautions against the risks of enabling the court to take power and create laws. The judiciary must thus ensure that, while interpreting certain pieces of legislation, it stays within limitations and refrains from using its power to construct law in the same manner that the legislature would.
“Such a maxim served to contain the judiciary from “interfering in politics” during the pre- 1994 South Africa, thereby leaving it entirely up to the government of the day to decide what was just and what was not, with regard to legislation.”6
In this method, when interpreting a legislative provision, the adjudicator was not permitted to deviate from or go beyond the obvious wording or sense of the provision. 7 This adage misses the reality that we do, in fact, live in a social environment that is dynamic and continually changing. If courts, especially labour courts, strictly adhered to the aforementioned rule, there would be little place for the expansion of South Africa’s economy and labour laws. Sadly, ideologies like the one expressed by the aforementioned maxim become outmoded, and the desire to move away from them only grows.
In her thesis, “The Role of the Judicial Method in the Relinquishment of Constitutional Rights to Contract,” Professor Deeksha Bhana investigates how legal culture and ideology interact with the fundamental principles of the Constitution as interpreted and applied by the judiciary. 8 According to Bhana, adjudication is “a political-immune and value-neutral exercise in legal reasoning. Judges so frequently exercise caution when allowing personal or political beliefs, ideals, or sensitivities to affect the decision-making process..”9
Our courts must implement the same ideological reform through the interpretation of labour legislation in order to overcome the impasse between the economic and labour regimes. It must achieve this by always upholding the fundamental tenets of our Constitution, which are “human dignity, the realisation of equality, and the promotion of human rights and freedoms.” If South Africa’s constitutional democracy (the Constitution) is to flourish and live a long and fruitful life, labour courts in particular must ensure that labour laws change to keep up with higher laws. The fundamental tenets of the Constitution must be balanced with the ongoing revision of labour laws in light of the overall socioeconomic context. It is plausible that the rule of law has to be flexible in order for our society to develop successfully.
1 Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. V. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1980 SC 1789
2 Parul Sharma (February 2007). “Split Legal Regime in India’s Labour Laws” – http://www.southasiaexperts.se/pdf/Indian%20Labour%20Law%20PDF.pdf.
3 Bharat Forge Co Ltd v Uttam Manohar Natake, 2005 INSC 45
4 “India Country Overview 2008”. World Bank. 2008. Archived from the original on May 22, 2011.
5 “World Bank criticizes India’s labor laws”. – http://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/World_Bank_criticizes_India%E2%80%99s_labor_laws_-nid-29498.html.
6 L Du Plessis n 12 at par 2C50
7 Ibid
8 D Bhana, “The role of judicial method in the relinquishing of constitutional rights to contract” 2008 SAJHR vol 24 300 – 317.
9 Ibid at p 302
Author Bio
