Home Legal News [Jute Mills case] Supreme Court observes interim order restraining coercive action against employers in Jute Mills Case to continue as per directions

[Jute Mills case] Supreme Court observes interim order restraining coercive action against employers in Jute Mills Case to continue as per directions

by Muskan
jute mills

With regards to Jute mills case, the Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned a batch of petitions challenging the notification of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs on March 29 directing employers to pay full wages to workers during lockdown. The court has also directed the Centre to file reply and has listed the matters after two weeks.

The bench told highlighting the Jute mills case to the centre, “Treat with urgency, File a response.”

The same bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, Sanjay Kishan Kaul MR Shah has directed that the interim order passed on May 15 restraining coercive action against the employer for non-payment of wages as per MHA direction shall continue.

Jute mills case
Justice ashok bhushan
Justices Ashok Bhushan
jute mills case
'sk kaul
Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Jute mills case
mr shah
MR Shah

Attorney General KK Venugopal appearing for the Centre has also informed the bench that a new notification had now been passed on 17 May which superseded the earlier 29 March notification.

Advertisements
Projectvala assignment service updated

In light of this, court has granted more time in the jute mills case to the Centre to file reply and listed the matter after two weeks.

READ ALSO: [Jute Mills] Supreme Court orders no coercive action against Jute Mills for not paying wages to employees during the lockdown

Subsequently, in the other two cases, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (appearing for Jute Mills Association) argued that under the “jute control order” all employers have to pay fixed amount.

“This case cannot be tagged with others. This is a peculiar one. Though during lockdown we were granted exemption but still we carried on as we are essential commodity”

Court at this directed in the jute mills case that the May 15 interim order shall continue to operate as applicable.

Background

Advertisements

On May 15, the bench had not passed any interim order and issued notices returnable within a week in the petitions by Ficus Pax Private Ltd, Ludhiana Hand Tools Association, The Twin City Industrial Employers Association, Rajasthan Steel Chamber, Instruments and Chemicals Private Ltd and others, Chamber of Small Industry Association and others, Kerala State Small Industries Association, Federation of Industries and Association, All India Federation of Master Printers, Teknomin Construction Limited and Garments Exports Manufacturing Association and others.

The petition(s) filed by Hand Tools Manufacturers Association and Jute Mills Association were also listed on May 19 after interim orders were passed.

All the above-mentioned petitions challenge the order issued by Home Secretary on March 29 invoking powers under Section 10(2)(l) of the Disaster Management Act 2005, which directed:

“All the employees, be it in the Industry or in the shops and commercial establishments, shall make payment of wages of their workers, at their work places, on the due date, without any deduction, for the period their establishments are under closure during the lockdown”

The MHA direction was challenged as unreasonable and arbitrary and being violative of the fundamental right to trade and business of the employers. Since operations are completely shut down during the lockdown, it is impossible for the employers to continue bearing the burden of full salary of employees, the petitioners submitted.

The petitioner(s) have also raised the argumentin the jute mills case that the direction in question was beyond the scope of powers conferred under the Disaster Management Act.

The plea states, “Interpreting Section 10(2)(l) of the Disaster Management Act 2005 as conferring power on the Central Government to direct Private Establishment to make full payment of wages to the employees during the lockdown period is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India.”

Related Articles

Leave a Comment

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More

× Chat with us on WhatsApp