Unit 2 - labour law 2, Slides of Labour Law

Download Unit 2 - labour law 2 and more Slides Labour Law in PDF only on Docsity!

Labor law 2

Module 1

DR VANSHIKA KUMAR

Bonded Labour System (Abolition)

Act, 1976

 (^) History & Purpose:  (^) The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 was enacted to eliminate the practice of bonded labor in India, where individuals are forced to work under extreme coercion due to debt bondage. Historically, bonded laborers were forced to work without fair wages to repay debts, which often led to lifelong exploitation. The Act aims to protect workers legally and eliminate this inhuman practice.

Bonded Labour System (Abolition)

Act, 1976

 (^) Section 5: Duty of the Government to Identify Bonded Labourers  (^) The Act assigns the duty of identifying bonded laborers to both state and central authorities. Special task forces, district collectors, and officers are appointed to find and release bonded laborers.  (^) The authorities are tasked with inspecting establishments where bonded labor may be in practice, such as agricultural farms, brick kilns, factories, etc.  (^) CASE LAW: Section 5: Duty of the Government to Identify Bonded Labourers  (^) State of Haryana v. Shyam Singh (1999) :  (^) In this case, the Supreme Court held that the State Government has a responsibility to identify bonded laborers and take necessary steps to rehabilitate them.  (^) The judgment stressed the importance of monitoring and enforcement to ensure that bonded labor is completely abolished. It also emphasized that the State is obligated to ensure that freed laborers are properly rehabilitated.

Bonded Labour System (Abolition)

Act, 1976

Section 6: Release of Bonded Labourers  (^) As soon as a person is identified as a bonded laborer, they must be released immediately.  (^) The employer or the person holding the laborer in bondage is legally bound to release them without delay.  (^) The state government will ensure that bonded laborers are rehabilitated by providing compensation, assistance in employment, and helping them reintegrate into society. CASE LAW:  (^) Section 6: Release of Bonded Labourers  (^) Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997) :  (^) Although this case primarily dealt with sexual harassment, it also referenced the issue of exploitation of workers. In the broader context, this case has influenced how authorities interpret workers' rights and the need to protect them from coercive working conditions like bonded labor.  (^) The case reinforced the constitutional duty of the government to ensure the release of laborers who are trapped in bonded labor and to provide them with rehabilitation.

Bonded Labour System (Abolition)

Act, 1976

Section 8: Offenses and Penalties  (^) Punishment for Engaging in Bonded Labour: If a person or entity continues to keep someone in bonded labor, they will face penalties as outlined in the law.  (^) Section 12 outlines the punishment for offenders:  (^) Imprisonment : Anyone found guilty of enforcing or continuing bonded labor may face imprisonment for up to three years.  (^) Fine : The guilty party may also be liable to a fine that may go up to ₹20,000 (subject to revision by the government).  (^) Both Imprisonment and Fine : Offenders can face both punishment in the form of imprisonment and fines simultaneously.  (^) CASE LAW: Bihar v. Kedar Nath Sharma (1992) :This case involved an employer who was found guilty of keeping individuals in bonded labor. The employer was charged with violating the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976.  (^) The Court upheld the penalties prescribed under the Act, imposing imprisonment and fine for the employer's violation.  (^) The case highlights the importance of enforcing the penal provisions of the Act and the responsibility of the authorities to ensure that punishments are meted out to violators to serve as a deterrent.

Bonded Labour System (Abolition)

Act, 1976

CASE LAW: State of Punjab v. Labour Court (1994) :  (^) This case dealt with the failure of an employer to release bonded laborers as required under the Act. The Court imposed a penalty and reiterated that employers must adhere to the provisions of the Act and release bonded laborers without delay.  (^) The case reinforced the notion that any failure to comply with the Act's provisions (such as the release of bonded laborers) is an offense and must be punished under the law.

Bonded Labour System (Abolition)

Act, 1976

Procedure for Implementation and Enforcement  (^) The procedure for implementation of the Act follows several stages:  (^) Identification :  (^) Authorities (including government officers, police, and civil society organizations) are tasked with identifying bonded laborers.  (^) Inspections are carried out in workplaces where bonded labor may be in practice. These include agricultural farms, factories, brick kilns, etc.  (^) Local NGOs and labor organizations may assist in identifying victims.  (^) Release of Bonded Labourers :  (^) Upon identification, the bonded laborer is immediately released by the concerned authorities.  (^) Bonded laborers cannot be held in bondage after their identification, and their release is non-negotiable.  (^) Rehabilitation :  (^) Released laborers are given immediate rehabilitation , including financial aid, employment opportunities, and other support mechanisms.  (^) The state government is responsible for ensuring that rehabilitation schemes are implemented and properly monitored.  (^) Penal Action :  (^) Employers or individuals who continue to practice bonded labor or fail to release bonded laborers are penalized.  (^) Penalties include imprisonment and/or fines. The enforcement of penalties is carried out by law enforcement agencies.

Bonded Labour System (Abolition)

Act, 1976

Punishment and Consequences  (^) If an individual or employer is found guilty of keeping bonded laborers or perpetuating the bonded labor system, the following actions can be taken:  (^) Imprisonment : The guilty party can be sentenced to a prison term of up to three years.  (^) Fine : The fine can be as high as ₹20,000 (which could be revised by the government from time to time).  (^) Both Imprisonment and Fine : The court can impose both a prison sentence and a monetary fine on the offender.

Equal Remuneration Act, 1976

The Equal Remuneration Act has been the subject of several important case laws that have helped shape its interpretation and application. Some of these cases provide clarity on the application of equal remuneration for equal work , and address issues of discrimination in the workplace.  (^) Objectives of the Equal Remuneration Act  (^) The primary objectives of the Act are:  (^) To ensure that equal remuneration is paid to men and women for equal work.  (^) To prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender in employment, particularly concerning wages, allowances, and benefits.  (^) To enforce equal treatment in terms of remuneration for jobs that are of equal value and require similar skill sets.

Equal Remuneration Act, 1976

Section 4 of the Equal Remuneration Act mandates that no employer shall discriminate between men and women in the payment of wages for the same work or for work of equal value.

• Discrimination based on gender is prohibited in all aspects of remuneration, including salaries, bonuses, incentives, allowances, and any other financial benefits.
• The term “equal work” and “work of equal value” refers to tasks that require similar skills, responsibilities, and efforts, even if the work is different in its nature. Section 6: Maintenance of Registers and Records  (^) Employers are required to maintain a register of employees and keep a record of wages paid to each employee, detailing the gender of the employee and the nature of work performed.  (^) This record is subject to inspection by the appropriate authorities, ensuring transparency in the employer’s wage policies.

Equal Remuneration Act, 1976

Section 9: Power to Make Rules  (^) The government is empowered to make rules and regulations to implement the provisions of the Equal Remuneration Act, including providing guidance on what constitutes equal work and work of equal value. CASE LAWS:  (^) 1. Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982)  (^) Facts : Randhir Singh, a government employee, filed a petition claiming that he was being paid less than his female counterparts for performing the same work. He argued that this violated his right to equality under Article 14 and the provisions of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976.  (^) Judgment : The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Randhir Singh, stating that equal work should be remunerated equally , regardless of the worker's gender. The Court emphasized that discrimination in wages based on gender is a violation of the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.  (^) Significance : This case reinforced the principle of equal pay for equal work as a constitutional and legal mandate. It set the precedent for gender-based wage discrimination cases and established the scope of the Equal Remuneration Act.

CASE LAWS

2. Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (1981)  (^) Facts : The case involved the differential pay between male and female air hostesses employed by Air India. While male flight stewards were paid higher wages, female air hostesses were subjected to different pay scales , based on their age and marital status.  (^) Judgment : The Supreme Court ruled that the policy of paying female air hostesses less than their male counterparts, based on their age and marital status, was discriminatory and violated the Equal Remuneration Act. The Court also stated that any distinction based on gender in terms of wages was not permissible under the law.  (^) Significance : This judgment furthered the understanding that employers could not set pay policies based on gender-specific criteria like age, marital status, or gender. It also reinforced the constitutional requirement for gender equality in wage-related matters.

CASE LAWS

State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1987)  (^) Facts : This case dealt with the application of the Equal Remuneration Act in government employment and the unequal wages paid to female workers compared to their male counterparts in similar roles.  (^) Judgment : The court held that the Equal Remuneration Act applies in all employment contexts, including government service. It ruled that any wage disparity based on gender is a violation of Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 16 (right to equal opportunity in public employment).  (^) Significance : This case reaffirmed that public sector employers must also follow the Equal Remuneration Act and cannot discriminate between genders in terms of wages.

Challenges and Gaps in Implementation

 (^) Despite the existence of the Equal Remuneration Act , challenges remain:  (^) Implementation Gaps : Some employers, especially in unorganized sectors , continue to pay unequal wages to men and women, despite the legal mandate.  (^) Work of Equal Value : Determining which jobs are of equal value can be difficult in some cases, as this depends on subjective assessments of job roles, responsibilities, and skills.  (^) Awareness and Compliance : Many workers, especially women in lower-paid jobs, may not be fully aware of their legal rights under the Equal Remuneration Act, making enforcement more difficult.