9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (1) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rangam and Miss A Subhashini, Mr. K. S. Ramamurthy with Mr. A. T. M. Sampath , M/s R.N. Sachthey, and Mr. Rameshwar Nath, for Respondents M/s Narayan Netter and Ram Shesh for the Interveners---Dharwar Distt. Beedi Workers' Union, Hubli and Anr JUDGEMENT RAY, C.J. The provisions of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Condition of Employment) Act, 1966 referred to as the Act are impeached as unconstitutional in these petitions and appeals. Broadly stated, the Act is challenged on, these grounds. First, Parliament has no legislative competence to enact this measure. It is a legislation for regulating beedi and cigar industry. Therefore, it falls under Entry 24 in State List II. Second, the restrictions imposed by the Act violate freedom of trade and business guaranteed under Article 19(i) (g). The Act imposes unreasonable burdens in cases where a manufacturer or trade mark holder of beedi has no master and servant relationship and no effective control on independent contractors or home-workers. The manufacturer or trade mark holder is rendered liable as the principal employer of contract labour. Third, section 4 of the Act imposes conditions which are arbitrar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the tobacco and beedi leaves supplied by the proprietor himself without the agency of middlemen. The beedis thus-supplied whether by the outworkers or contrac- tors are roasted, labelled and packed by the proprietor and sold to the public. Under these systems, the contractor engages labourers less than the statutory number to escape the application of the Factories Act. There is a fragmentation of the place of manufacture of beedis with a view to evading the factory legislation. Sometimes there is no definite relationship of master and servant between the actual worker and the ultimate proprietor. Branch managers of contractors are often men of straw. The proprietor will not be answerable for the wages of the outworkers because there is no Privity of contract between them. A large body of actual workers are illiterate women who could with impunity be exploited by the proprietors, and contractors. There is in this background an indiscriminate and undetectable employment of child labour. The contractor being himself dependent on the proprietor has little means to have any organized system. Women and infirm can earn something by rolling beedis. The dependence of these people parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stry was universal. 2/5th of the total workers were children. Home workers were predominant. There were full time workers but they were paid less than fair wages. Working conditions were extremely unsatisfactory from the standpoint of floor space, sanitation, ventilation and lighting. In 1954, the Government of India appointed Shri Natraj Inspector of Factories to assess the situation with a view to affording maximum legislative protection to the workers. The Report was as follows. Although the number of workers engaged in the manufacture of beedi exceeded one lakh, only 17,544 were employed in factories. The contract and home work systems enriched proprietor at the expense of the worker and also deprived the latter of his bargaining power in regard to conditions of labour. The poverty as well as illiteracy of the workers was taken advantage of by the employers. There were long hours of work with low wages, deplorable working conditions and unrestricted employment of 'women and children. The entire beedi industry was unorganised and scattered over the entire state, employing a large force of women. It called for radical reforms in the organisation. There was reluctance of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nected therewith. The special feature of the industry was the manufacture of beedis through contractors and by distributing work in the private dwelling house, where the workers took raw materials given by the employers of contractors. The relationship between employers and employees was not well defined. The application of the factories Act met with difficulties. The labour in the industry was unorganised and was not able to look after its own interests. The industry was highly mobile. The attempt of some of the States to legislate in this behalf was not successful. The necessity for central legislation was felt. A bill was mooted to provide for the regulation of the contract system of work, licensing of beedi and cigar industrial premises and matter like health, hours of work, spread over, rest periods, over time, annual leave with pay, distribution of raw materials etc. The anxiety was expressed by several Committees to introduce some regulation in the employer-employee relationship and to obtain certain benefits to the employees which were denied to them. The so-called contractor or the employer as styled by the employees has been a matter of some concern to the employees as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tem. The legislation did not want to stop the contract system. The provisions in the Act recognised the contractor as a part and parcel of the beedi industry. The contractor is referred to where the terms 'contract labour' or 'principal employer' of 'employer' have been defined. Several functions which the employer has to perform are also performed by the contractor. He delivers tobacco and leaves to the home worker and collects the rolled beedis after application of chhat. He makes payment to them. Therefore, the contractor has been retained as an integral part though the attempt is to eliminate the vices which crept into the industry. The Madras High Court in M/s. K. Abdul Azeez Sahib and Sons, Four Horse Beedi Manufacturers, Vellore--4 and Ors. v. The Union of India (1973) 11 M.L.J. 126 held the definitions of employer and principal employer in Section 2 (g) (a) and 2(m) of the Act to be-valid but held that sections 26 and 27 of the Act are wholly unenforceable against the trade mark holders whether with reference to home workers or with reference to employees working in any industrial premises. The Madras High Court held that since a worker in a beedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also held that section 31 ,of the Act is valid and Rule 29 does not impose unreasonable restriction by compelling the employer to accept beedis when they are sub-standard and the sub standard beedis and cigars exceed 5 per cent. If' the employer finds that the sub standard beedis and cigars are above 5 per cent then he has to refer the matter to the Inspector. The Kerala High Court in Chirukandeth Chandrasekharan v. Union of India (1972) 1 L.L.J. 340 held that the provisions of sections 2 (g) (a), 2 (m) 3, 4, 21, 26 and 27 of the Act impose unreasonable restrictions on business or trade and are violative of-Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. The Kerala High Court held that the words in relation to other labour occurring in section 2(g) (b) have also to, be deleted. The Kerala High Court held sections 3 and 4 to be valid. The Kerala High Court held that sections 26 and 27 will not apply to home workers. The Kerala High Court struck down rule 29 of the Kerala Rules on the ground that imposition of 5 per cent on the maximum amount of rejection is an arbitrary percentage. Kerala Rule 29 stated that no employer shall ordinarily reject more than 2-5 per cent. The provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facture of beedis and cigars. The scheme of the Act relates to provisions regarding health and welfare, conditions of employment, leave with wages, extension of benefits by applying other Act to Labour. To illustrate section 28 of the Act extends benefits of the Payment of Wages Act to, industrial premises, Section 31 of the Act provides for security of service, Section 37 of the Act extends the benefit of Industrial Standing Orders Act, 1946. Again, section 37 (3) of the Act makes provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act applicable to every establishment. Section 38(1) of the Act applies the safety provisions contained in Chapter IV of the Factories Act to industrial premises. Section 39(1) of the Act makes the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 applicable to matters ,arising in respect of every industrial premises. Section 39(2) of the Act provides that disputes between an employee and an employer in relation to issue of raw materials, rejection of beedis and cigars, payment of wages for the beedis and cigars rejected by the employer, shall be settled by such authority as the State Government may specify. An Appeal is provided to the appellate authority whose decision is final. Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the labour for the locality in the interest of the public generally and such other matters as may be prescribed. The licensing authority is required to communicate his reason in writing when he refuses to grant a licence. Section 5 of the Act provides an appeal to the appellate authority against such order. The power to grant or refuse a licence is sufficiently controlled by necessary guidance. There are safeguards preventing the abuse of power. The right to appeal is a great safeguard. The various matters indicated in section 4 in regard to the grant of licence indicate not only the various features which are to be considered but also rule out any arbitrary act. There is machinery as well as procedure for determining the grant of refusal of a licence. The application for grant of a licence is to be determined on objective consideration as laid down in the section. There is neither unfairness nor unreasonableness in sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The validity of the Act was challenged on the principal ground that the Act imposed unreasonable restrictions on the manufacturers in their right to carry on trade and business in the manufacture of beedis and cigars. The unreasonable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to contract labour the principal employer, and (b) in relation to other labour, the person who has the ultimate control over the affairs of any establishment or who has, by reason of his advancing money, supplying goods or otherwise, a substantial interest in the control of the affairs of any establishment, and includes any other person to whom the affairs of the establishment are entrusted, whether such other person is called the managing agent, manager, superintendent or by any other name. Section 2(m) of the Act defines 'principal employer' to mean a person for whom or on whose behalf any contract labour is engaged or employed in an establishment. Section 2(h) of the Act defines ,establishment' to mean any place or premises including the precincts thereof in which or in any part of which any manufacturing process connected with the making of beedi or cigar or both is being or is ordinarily, carried on and includes an industrial premise.. Section 2(i) of the Act defines 'industrial premises' to mean any place or premises in which any industry or manufacturing process connected with the making of beedi or cigar or both is being or is ordinarily, carried on w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of labour. To illustrate, a mortgagee in possession of an industrial premises, a hypothetic of goods manufactured in industrial premises or in any establishment, a financier in relation to a manufacturer or a contractor or a sub-contractor may become employer by reason of such consideration mentioned in the Act. In cases where the manufacturer or trade mark holder himself' employs labour there is direct relationship of master and servant and therefore liability is attracted by reason of that relationship. There cannot be any question of unreasonableness in such a case. In the second category the manufacturer of trade mark holder engages contract labour through a contractor and he becomes the principal employer. Though such labour may be engaged by a contractor with or without the knowledge of the manufacturer or trade mark holder, this contract labour is engaged for the principal employer who happens to be the trade mark holder or the manufacturer. The liability arises by reason of contract labour engaged for or on behalf of the principal employer. In the third category, the contractor becomes the Principal employee because the contractor engages labour for or on his own beh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had no right to-.insist on supply of raw materials to him. The work was distributed between a number of so called, independent contractors, who were told to employ not more than 9 persons at one place to avoid regulations under the Factories Act. This Court held that the relationship of master and servant between the appellant and the employees employed by I the independent contractor was established in that case. If it is found that manufacturers or trade mark holders are not responsible on the ground that the person with whom 'they are dealing are really independent contractors then such independent contractors will have to be considered as principal employers within the meaning of the Act. The contention on behalf of the petitioners and the appellants is that in common law a person cannot be made responsible for actions of an independent contractor and that he should not be penalised for the contravention of any law by an independent contractor is to be examined in view of the language employed in defining the expressions contract labour, contract, establishment, employer and principal employer. It was particularly said that when home workers wore given tobacco and leave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the instructions of the employer and direct the worker to restitch it, the element of control and supervision as formulated in the decisions of this Court is also present. Fourth, a person can be a servant of more than one employer. A servant need not be under the exclusive control of one master. He can be employed under more than one employer. Fifth, that the workers are not obliged to work for the whole day in the shop is not very material. In the ultimate 'analysis it would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case in determining the relationship of master and servant. The present legislation is intended to achieve welfare benefits and amenities for the labour. That is why the manufacturer or trade marks holder becomes the principal employer though he engages contract labour through the contractor. He cannot escape liability imposed on him by the statute by stating that he has engaged the labour through a contractor to do the work and therefore he is not responsible for the labour. The Contractor in such a case employs the labour only for and on behalf of the principal employer. The contractor being an agent of the principal employer for manufacturing beedis is ame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our without corresponding obligations. If the contractors could be made responsible for the working conditions of labour or their wages or their leave or their other benefits than no question would arise. It is not uncommon for labourers to work for a contractor on terms which are designed to satisfy the law that they are not servants but independent contractors. In the present case, it is not material to find out as to who can be called an independent contractor. It can be said that independent contractors are those who employ labour for and on behalf of themselves in so far as the present Act is concerned. The only scope for inquiry is whether a person has employed labour for and on his own behalf. If the answer be in the affirmative then such a contractor would be a principal employer within the meaning of section 2(g) (a). It appears that the principal employer or the employer, as the case may be,' is liable on the ground that the labour is employed for or on behalf of the principal employer or the employer. In relation to contract labour the principal employer is the person for whom or on whose behalf any contract labour is engaged in any establishment. An em- ployer in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions as to calculation of leave which are not material in the present case. Under section 27 of the Act an employee shall be paid at the rate equal to the daily average of his full time earning for the days on which he had worked during the month immediately preceding his leave exclusive of any overtime earnings and bonus but inclusive of dearness and other allowances. There are two explanations. The first explanation states that the expression total full time earning includes cash equiva- lent to the advantage accruing through the confessional sale to employees of foodgrains and other articles, as the employee is for the time being entitled to, but does not include bonus. The second explanation states that for the purpose of determining the wages payable to a home worker during leave period or for the purpose of payment of maternity benefit to a woman home worker day shall mean any period during which such home worker was employed, during a period of twenty four hours commencing at midnight, for making beedi or cigar or both. The word establishment is defined in section 2(h) of the Act to mean any place or premises including the precincts in which or in any part o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... calculating one day's leave for every 20 days of work is also adopted in the case of Government servants. (See Central Civil Service Leave Rules, 1972 Rules 26 and 2(m). Instead of being unreasonable it can be said to be an impetus to a servant to put in the maximum of work in order to obtain the maximum amount of leave. The entitlement to leave under section 27 of the Act is based on the number of days of actual work. It is, therefore, not an unreasonable restriction on the employer. Thirdly it is said that the payment of leave wages at the rate equal to the daily average of his total full time earnings in the case of home workers is unreasonable. Reference is made to section 22 of the Act which speaks of notice of periods of work in industrial premises. Section 22 of the Act is not applicable to home workers. In the case of home workers it is said that they are free to do work at any time and for any length of time in a day even for 24 hours a day. It is, therefore said that it will be difficult to calculate the total full time earnings of home workers. The works in section 27 of the Act are total full time earnings . One meaning of the words in the case of home worker ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of beedis manufactured by him for a particular employer. The hours of work will in that case be immaterial, because if he worked for less number of hours he would obtain lesser payment. There will thus be no difficulty in computing wages payable for the annual leave period. The home worker will get leave wages corresponding to his actual earning just as the worker in the industrial premises will get leave wages corresponding to his full time earnings. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the present appeal said that home workers carry on their rolling work at homes which are neither establishments nor industrial premises. The word establishment as defined in section 2(h) of the Act relates to home workers as well. It is only industrial premises as defined in section 2(i) of the Act which excludes private dwelling houses. The home workers are not required to work for a specified number of hours a day. The fact that sections 17 to 23 of the Act can have no application to home workers but only to persons employed in industrial premises does not tender sections 26 and 27 of the Act inapplicable to home workers. The express language of sections 26 and 27 of the Act is relatable to home ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct the specified periods of work contemplated in section 22 of the Act. With regard to a home worker the wages during leave period will be calculated with reference to the daily average of his total full time earnings for the days on which he worked during the preceding month.. In the case of home workers it will be the average of 30 days earnings. To illustrate, if the worker has earned different sums on different days during the month the sums will be added for the purpose of arriving at an average. The computation in the case of home workers will be first with reference to the total earning during the month and full time earning is the average thereof. '.The second explanation to section 27 of the Act shows that for the purpose of determining the wages payable to home worker during leave period day shall mean any period during which such home worker, was employed during any period of 24 hours. Therefore, so far as the home worker is concerned day shall mean any period. The manner in which leave wages for workers in industrial premises and home workers are to be calculated may be illustrated with reference to the beedis and Cigar workers (Conditions of Employment) Mysore Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are employee in place of the word 'worker' and the word establishment in place of the word factory in the Factories Act. In Chintaman Rao (supra) case this Court held that the three ingredients and concepts of employment are, first there must be an employer, second, there must be an employee and the third, there must be a contract of employment. In Chintaman Rao case (supra) certain independent contractors- known as Sattedars supplied beedis to the Manager of a beedi factory. The Sattedars manufactured the beedis in their own factories or they entrusted the work to third parties. The Inspector of Factories found in the beedi factory certain sattedars who came to deliver beedis manufactured by them. The owner of the factory was prosecuted for violation of sections 62 and 63 of the Factories Act for failure to maintain the register of adult workers.. It was held that the Sattedars and their coolies (sic) were not workers within the definition of section 2(1) of the Factories Act. The ratio was that the Sattedars were not under the control of the factory management and could manufacture beedis wherever they pleased. Further the 'coolies' (sic) were not employ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were refused benefits by the owners of beedi manufacturing establishments. Therefore, the State Government issued notification under section 85 of the Factories Act. Section 85 of the Factories Act provides that the State Government may declare that all or any of the provisions of the Act shall apply to any place where a manufacturing process is carried on notwithstanding that the number of persons employed therein is less than the number specified in the definition of factory or where the persons working therein are not employed by the owner but are working with the permission of, or under agreement with, such owner. The State Government designated certain places to be deemed factory and the persons working there to be deemed workers. This Court said that extension of the benefits of the-Factories Act to premises and workers not falling strictly within the purview of the Factories Act is intended to serve the same purpose. On this reasoning the provisions for the benefit of deemed workers were held to be reasonable within the meaning of Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. These four decisions were relied on by counsel for the petitioners and the appellants lo show that home ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .workers are entitled to wages during the leave period and such wages do not in the case of home workers depend upon the consideration whether a particular home worker woks for a whole of the notified period of work. The basis of calculation of wages in the case of home workers is the daily average of his total full time earnings for the day,,) on which he had worked during the month immediately preceding his leave. If a home workers does full time work by rolling out 1000 pieces he will get corresponding amount of wages. Both the factory workers in industrial premises and home workers in establishments are similarly placed by proper control over or regulation-of supply of raw materials 'Lo home workers. Just as the total full time earnings of the worker in an industrial premises are calculated with reference to hours of worker each day, similarly the full time earnings of the home workers at calculated by the earnings of each day which are kept under control by supply of measured raw materials to produce the requisite number of beedis which a worker can produce a day within his hours of work in the establishment. So far as home workers are concerned, the payment is made at pi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll ordinarily reject as substandard or chhat or otherwise more than 5 percent of the beedis or cigars of both received from the worker including a home worker. Rule 37(2) of the Maharashatra Rules further provides that where any beedi or cigar is rejected as sub-standard or chhat or otherwise on any ground other than the ground of willful negligence of the worker, the worker shall be paid wages for the pieces so rejected at one half of the rates at which wages are payable to him for the beedis or cigars or both which have not been so rejected. Rule 29 of the Mysore Rules provides that no employer or contractor shall ordinarily reject an sub-standard or chhat or otherwise more than 2 per cent of the beedis or cigars or both received from the worker including a home worker. It is also provided there that the employer or contractor may effect such rejection upto 5 per cent for reasons to be recorded and communicated in writing to the worker. Rule 29 of the Kerala Rules is identical to Rule 29 of the Mysore Rules except that instead of 2 per cent it provides for 2.5 per cent as a limit for rejection. The Kerala High Court held that Kerala rule 29 fixes arbitrary percentage and is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act shall apply to matters arising in respect of every industrial premises and section 39 (2) (c) of the Act provides that notwithstanding any thing contained in sub-section (1) a dispute between an employer and employee relating to the payment of wages for beedi or cigar or both rejected by an employer shall be settled by such authority and in such manner as the State Government may by Rules specify in that behalf. Section 44(2) (r) of the Act provides for making of rules with regard to the manner in which sorting or rejection ,of beedi or cigar or both and disposal of rejected beedi or cigar or both shall be carried out. The Mysore Rule 27 provides that any dispute between an employer and employee in relation to rejection by the em- ployer of beedi or cigar or both make by an employee may be referred in writing by the employer or the employee or employees to the Inspector for the area who shall after making such enquiry as he may consider necessary and after giving the parties an opportunity to represent their respective cases, decide the dispute and record the proceedings in form X. Form X relates to record of decision of Order. Various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harashtra Rule 37(2) requiring payment at halt the rates for beedis rejected as sub-standard, if the same was not due to the willful negligence of the employee. It was, therefore,, said that either up to 5 per cent rejection under Maharashtra Rule 37 or rejection of more than 5 per cent the employer was under an obligation to make payment at half of the rate as rejected beedis if such rejection was not due to the willful negligence of the employee. It has, therefore, to be, ascertained as to whether the Rules prohibit employer from rejecting more than 5 per cent even if-they are found to be sub-standard and secondly whether the requirement to pay wages at one half of the rite for the rejected beedis is a reasonable restriction. The Rules provide for rejection upto 5 per cent. The Rules further used the word 'ordinarily' in regard to such rejection. In case of rejection of more than 5 per cent Rule 27 of the Mysore Rules and Rule 37 of the Maharashtra Rules provide for raising of a dispute in regard to such rejection. The dispute contemplated is in. relation to rejection of beedis and the payment of wages for the rejected beedis. The word rejection and rejected indica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith prohibition of employment of, or work by, women, prohibited during certain period and right of payment of maternity benefit. Section 4 of the 1961 Act does not present any difficulty because it speaks of prohibition of work by a women in any establishment during six months immediately following the day of her delivery Further, section 4 provides that on a request being made by a pregnant woman she will not be required to do work of an arduous nature or work which involves long hours of standing and that period is one month immediately preceding the period of six weeks before the date of her expected delivery. Section 5(2) of the said 1961 Act provides that no women shall be entitled to maternity benefit unless she has actually worked in any establishment for a period of not less than 160 days, in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery. There is no difficulty with regard to working of these sections in regard to maternity benefits to women employed in an establishment. For these reasons, we hold that Parliament had legislative competence in making this Act and the provisions of the Act are valid and do not offend any provisions of the Consti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontractor is contract labour. If any manufacturer employs any person through a contractor, the labour would be contract labour. Then again contractor also means a person who engages labour for any manufacturing process in a private dwelling house . In such a case even a principal employer who engages labour for anymanufacturing process would be a contractor. The further definition of the word contractor . includes a sub-contractor, agent, munshi, the kedar or sattedar. These are obviously. included to cover a class of persons dealt with by this Court in certain decisions including Chintaman Rao's Case (1958 SCR 1340). An employer is defined to be, in relation to contract labour, the principal employer. I have already pointed out that contract labour would include labour employed even by the manufacturer himself direct. Principal employer is defined as a person for whom or on whose behalf any contract labour is engaged or employed in an establishment . Therefore, when contract labour is employed for a person he is principal employer. When contract labour is engaged or employed on behalf of a person he is also a principal employer. What distinction could be made between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne hand be the actual occupier of the industrial premises. There will be on the other hand a person who might have advanced money to him and supplied goods to him and therefore may be substantially interested in its control. The actual occupier himself might be a contractor and in that case lie as well as the person on whose behalf beedies are manufactured would be liable. Who, in that case, would be actually liable ? I do not agree with the view taken by the Bombay High Court that the Act exhibits an intention to retain the system of contractors. It only takes notice of the existence of the system of contractors and it appears to me that by making the principal employer responsible in every case it is actually trying to force the principal employer to undertake the work of manufacture himself rather than give it to contractors because in any case he would be ultimately liable financially and otherwise to everyone of the workmen employed. Quite possibly if an independent contractor is one of. the type envisaged by the Madras High Court in its judgment in Abdul Aziz Sahib Sons v. Union of India (1973 2 MLJ 126) that is, of a person buying the materials from the person whom it call ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annual leave only for person who had worked for 240 days in a year this Act provides for one day's leave for every 20 days during which they have worked. It may be possible for the contractor to know on how many days the home worker has worked from the log book maintained by him. But what is the wage which has to be paid to him during the period of leave ? That term is not defined in the Act and it is not permissible to refer to other Acts in order to understand the meaning of that term. Even if we take it to be what it means in popular usage it is not possible to say what are the wages in the case of a home worker. A home worker might work for one hour on one day, eight hours on another day and not at all for a number of days What would be the wages payable to him ? I am not canvassing the reasonableness of this provision but of the difficulty in giving effect to the provision. The same criticism applies to various other provisions contained in that section. Section 27 provides that for the leave allowed to an employee under section 26 he shall be paid at the rate equal to the daily average of his total full-time earnings for the days on which he had worked during the month im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lieu of such notice. Is it enough that the employee has been employed for a period of six months if he has been working for one or two days every month during those six months, and in any case how are his wages in lieu of notice to be determined ? And who, would be the employer competent to dispense with the services of the employee'? If a contractor dispenses with the services of an employee in contravention of section 31 and is convicted under section 33 for the first time, would the principal employer be liable to imprisonment if there is a second prosecution? These are some of the problems which are likely to arise in actual working of the Act. I must make it clear that my abjection is not to any of the provisions on the ground of their unreasonableness or constitutionality. The long abstracts which the learned Attorney General read from the Report of the Royal Commission on Labour, the Royal Committee Report, and the Reports of Dr. B. V. N. Naidu and Mr. M. A. Natarajan depict the miserable conditions in which the workers in the industry work. Nobody can dispute the need for setting right those evils. But good intentions should not result in a legislation which would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
