Labour movements have varied histories in different countries which in a slow evolutionary process gained universality.
Rights of the working class secured over the years were not by gift of any Government but due to their continuous struggle against colonial and capitalist system. In May 1, 1886, workers of USA gathered demanding shorter work day than from “sunrise to sunset” which led to police action and death of some workers which led to observation of May 1 as International “Labour Day.” Bombay (Mumbai) which rapidly grew as an industrial and port city following takeover by the East India Company grew as an epicenter of the workers’ movement for a long time.
People with divergent political faiths organised workers in textile units and the dockyards which later spread to railway and municipality. The first labour strike took place in 1908 in an organised manner which progressively developed during the period of British Raj compelling the Raj to enact the TU Act in 1926 and the Payment of wages Act in 1936.
For the first time, a labour conference was held in July 1920 which was attended by national leaders like Pandit Motilal Nehru, Annie Besant, MA Jinnah, BP Wadia and others who demanded banning police interference, statutory guarantee for job contracts and demanding medical leave etc. Thus the impact of labour movement on national politics in a vast country like ours played a significant role. During the freedom struggle, Gandhiji had supported workers movement at Ahmadabad. Netaji Subash Chandra Bose led TATA Steel Workers Union at Jamshedpur form 1928 to 1937. The MW Act 1948, Equal Remuneration Act 1976, ID Act 1947, Factory Act 1948, Mines Act 1952, Employees State Insurance Act 1948 and the PF Act 1952 etc were thus enacted towards achieving socio- economic justice.
Consolidation of multiple laws
The new Labour Code is a consigned entity of such multiple labour laws enacted by the Centre and the State Governments. The Code on security has also consolidated multiple laws, extending such security to new areas like unorganised sector which paves way for creating a social security fund for such class of workers.
The workers engaged in small sector units like textile, real estate, transport and workshops etc need to be covered under security code, as millions of migrant workers met untold sufferings both at work places and during outward journey due to sudden lockdown, closure of industries and communications during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Multiple slabs under the Minimum Wage Act were confusing which has been reduced in the new Act that will benefit the workers and facilitate easy compliance. States should have been empowered to fix minimum wages of certain categories of workmen depending on local situation and cost of living which now requires to be determined on the basis of floor wage of the Union Government. Rule making powers of the States have been grossly limited under the new provisions. This is not appropriate as labour is in Concurrent List.
Right to strike
Labour law is a progressive legislation and need not snatch away any existing right as this right was achieved through a century long struggle of working class to increase its bargaining capacity. The Code prescribing a notice of 60 days for any strike under section-62(I) is a rigid concept.
As a trade union activist for some time, the author clearly visualizes that such a huge time gap would give a handle to the powerful and rich managements to pursue a divide and rule policy and break the unity of workers jeopardizing very concept of trade unionism. This right no doubt needed careful regulation to ease business in present market economy scenario but any serious restriction on the right to strike may not appear positive.
It may not be out of place to mention that even under old labour regulations capitalism and business grew without any hindrance as more than 77 per cent of India’s wealth is reportedly under control of 10 per cent of its population which points how economic divide is widening after independence and the existing law had no adverse impact on business.
Provision under Section-64 of the new Code to punish for any financial contribution for support to any strike is likely to be misused. Sedition law was misused by the British Government against BG Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi and other freedom fighters which still glorifies our statute which is often misused by successive Central Governments.
Not only trade union movement, every movement receives contribution from members of public or outside and this restriction would be a retrograde.
Hire and Fire
Standing orders are the source of stabilisation of service benefits. Section-28 of the Labour Code exempts industries from purview of standing order if any unit has less than 300 employees. Since more than 50 per cent of industrial units in India have less than 300 employees, this provision is likely to be misused to the advantages of the employer.
Hitherto, industries where 100 or more people are engaged were covered under standing order scheme. Similarly, industries having such worker strength would not require Government approval for closure, layoffs, retrenchment for relief under chapter-10 of the Code.
The definition of worker under the old and new law is almost same but the wage ceiling may require a review or a distinct provision to cover white-collar employees. If the labour laws cannot protect them, who would? Hence along with salary slab, qualification like ITI, Diploma and Engineering and other skilled persons in any grade drawing any amount of salary in non-executive nature needs statutory protection. This author in a memorandum to the Speaker, Lok Sabha and Chairman, Rajya Sabha on 07/01/2011 had requested for a review by appropriate Parliament Committee on extending statutory protection to such white-collar employees.
Institutional Independence
For resolution of industrial disputes and unfair labour practices like discharge, dismissal and termination and holding inquiries and awarding reliefs, the new Code provides mechanism such as conciliation officers, industrial tribunal and national tribunal which are steps in right direction.
However, qualification for nomination and holding certain adjudicating offices, background of labour law would have been more acceptable than present criteria of “independent person” as it is likely to be twisted or manipulated for appointment of unsuitable persons.
Vesting trial for any statutory offence in executive authorities may not be commensurate as Article-50 of the Constitution mandates the State to separate judiciary “from public service.”
(The writer is a former Assembly Deputy Speaker and a former Member, State Planning Board. Ph: 9437412877. pandarcp@gmail.com)