Thank you, Mr. Varghese! This is the judgment I searched for but in vain. Generally, we find the numerical strength of the employees as one of the criteria fixed for the purpose of applicability of Labor legislations either in totality or in respect of particular chapters relating to certain conditions of employment and other aspects of managerial decisions affecting employment on a larger scale.
The various conditions of employment, per se, are not just creatures of law but originate from customs and practices followed ever since human labor started to be bartered for reward from times immemorial and later came to be codified with the metamorphosis of the relationship of hirer and the hired from that of master and servant to employer and employee with its ever-increasing complexities. The logic behind such a move is equity and social justice. That's why laissez-faire has universally given way to state intervention in matters of trade, commerce, and industrial employment. For example, payment of bonus.
Though the term "bonus" escapes a precise legal definition, literally it means "anything pleasant that is extra and more or better than expected." When the agreed due compensation part of the terms of employment is fulfilled by the employer then and there, what is the necessity of paying a bonus to the employed at the end of the year? Is it not an additional and unagreed liability imposed on him? In every economic society, the grant of festival inam to servants is a custom in vogue. In every agrarian community, the festival is associated with the harvest. When the harvest is objectively fair, the farmer comes forward to apportion a part of his harvest to all the people associated with it directly or indirectly. It is a compassionate gesture in recognition of their services. It arises spontaneously out of the employment relationship of the partners of production.
But, in the context of industrial employment as it has been obtaining ever since the Industrial Revolution, the relationship has become highly impersonal and the owner or the master of the business need not be the employer. So, legal compulsion becomes inevitable, particularly in the absence of fair or living wages after making provision for equitable dividends to the shareholders, depreciation of plant and machinery, and the future development of the enterprise. The complex nature of financial calculations in this regard makes it imperative for exempting the small enterprise and where the number of employees' criteria comes into play. It is not the intent of the law that a small employer need not pay a bonus or his employees have no right to claim a bonus. But it is an implied and positive expectation of the law that they would work it out amicably.
Similarly, when Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is neither applicable nor the strength of workmen is 50 or above, the underlying legislative intention is that the employer and the employees would come to an amicable decision of a layoff as per their subsisting contract of employment or otherwise befitting their mutual interests. Hope, Mr. Kumar agrees with me now.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
6185The various conditions of employment, per se, are not just creatures of law but originate from customs and practices followed ever since human labor started to be bartered for reward from times immemorial and later came to be codified with the metamorphosis of the relationship of hirer and the hired from that of master and servant to employer and employee with its ever-increasing complexities. The logic behind such a move is equity and social justice. That's why laissez-faire has universally given way to state intervention in matters of trade, commerce, and industrial employment. For example, payment of bonus.
Though the term "bonus" escapes a precise legal definition, literally it means "anything pleasant that is extra and more or better than expected." When the agreed due compensation part of the terms of employment is fulfilled by the employer then and there, what is the necessity of paying a bonus to the employed at the end of the year? Is it not an additional and unagreed liability imposed on him? In every economic society, the grant of festival inam to servants is a custom in vogue. In every agrarian community, the festival is associated with the harvest. When the harvest is objectively fair, the farmer comes forward to apportion a part of his harvest to all the people associated with it directly or indirectly. It is a compassionate gesture in recognition of their services. It arises spontaneously out of the employment relationship of the partners of production.
But, in the context of industrial employment as it has been obtaining ever since the Industrial Revolution, the relationship has become highly impersonal and the owner or the master of the business need not be the employer. So, legal compulsion becomes inevitable, particularly in the absence of fair or living wages after making provision for equitable dividends to the shareholders, depreciation of plant and machinery, and the future development of the enterprise. The complex nature of financial calculations in this regard makes it imperative for exempting the small enterprise and where the number of employees' criteria comes into play. It is not the intent of the law that a small employer need not pay a bonus or his employees have no right to claim a bonus. But it is an implied and positive expectation of the law that they would work it out amicably.
Similarly, when Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is neither applicable nor the strength of workmen is 50 or above, the underlying legislative intention is that the employer and the employees would come to an amicable decision of a layoff as per their subsisting contract of employment or otherwise befitting their mutual interests. Hope, Mr. Kumar agrees with me now.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sirs,
Thank you for the valuable information and practical ideas. I have one query here. During a period of layoff, can the employer appoint casual laborers for a full month and pay wages to them for dispatching the available stock to customers and performing emergency services (such as electrical work) in the factory? Unionized workers may not support this due to the potential issue where some workers receive full wages while others do not, causing internal conflict among them.
In this scenario, can the employer hire a maximum of 6 contract laborers (2 workers per shift for 3 shifts) during the layoff period?
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you for the valuable information and practical ideas. I have one query here. During a period of layoff, can the employer appoint casual laborers for a full month and pay wages to them for dispatching the available stock to customers and performing emergency services (such as electrical work) in the factory? Unionized workers may not support this due to the potential issue where some workers receive full wages while others do not, causing internal conflict among them.
In this scenario, can the employer hire a maximum of 6 contract laborers (2 workers per shift for 3 shifts) during the layoff period?
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Stephen,
Greetings!
As our friend Umakant rightly said, in a unionized organization, we have to deal with and make decisions within the framework of the rules. The interpretation of rules based on the problems we face in the day-to-day organization is also crucial.
Regarding the engagement of casual labor during a layoff period, no union leader or worker generally agrees. To address this issue, firstly, an option should be given to the existing employees to decide whether they would like to work until the available stock is dispatched. If they agree, the required number of workers can be engaged on a routine basis without giving any chance for dispute. This practical approach may be helpful.
Best regards,
Eswararao Ivaturi.
From United States, Cupertino
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Greetings!
As our friend Umakant rightly said, in a unionized organization, we have to deal with and make decisions within the framework of the rules. The interpretation of rules based on the problems we face in the day-to-day organization is also crucial.
Regarding the engagement of casual labor during a layoff period, no union leader or worker generally agrees. To address this issue, firstly, an option should be given to the existing employees to decide whether they would like to work until the available stock is dispatched. If they agree, the required number of workers can be engaged on a routine basis without giving any chance for dispute. This practical approach may be helpful.
Best regards,
Eswararao Ivaturi.
From United States, Cupertino
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.