Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether interim protection should continue against coercive action based on the lockdown wage directions, and whether a facilitated process of negotiation and conciliation between employers and workers should be ordered pending adjudication of the writ petitions.
Analysis: The petitions assailed the wage directions issued under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, while the Union stated that the impugned directions had been withdrawn with effect from 18.05.2020. The Court noted that although the immediate obligation under the withdrawn directions had ceased, the disputes regarding wages for the period during which the directions remained in force still required a workable interim arrangement. It found that the lockdown had affected both employers and employees, that establishments differed in financial capacity, and that a balance had to be struck between competing claims. The Court also noted that industrial peace could be advanced through negotiation and conciliation through labour authorities and that the earlier order protecting employers from coercive action should continue.
Conclusion: The Court directed that no coercive action would be taken pursuant to the 29.03.2020 notification, and it ordered a facilitated process of negotiation, conciliation, and possible settlement between employers and workers regarding wages for the lockdown period, with circulation of the order by the Central Government and States.