A CONSTITUTIONAL OUTLOOK ON THE REALM OF LABOR LEGISLATION

Synopsis
1. Introduction
2. Background
3. Preamble of Indian Constitution and Labour Legislations
4. Fundamental Rights and Labour Legislations
5. Directive Principles of State Policy and Labour Legislations
6. Judicial Wisdom of the Courts and Labour Legislations
7. Conclusion
___________________________________________________________________________

1. Introduction
The Indian Constitution, since its inception, has been the cornerstone
of the legal framework governing labour rights in the country. Its intricate
balance between Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy,
and judicial interpretation has sculpted a comprehensive regime for
safeguarding the interests of workers. This article delves into the symbiotic
relationship between the Indian Constitution and labour legislation,
elucidating how constitutional provisions and judicial wisdom have shaped
labour laws in India.

2. Background
The constitutional foundation of present-day labour law in India
originates from the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State
Policy enshrined in the Constitution of India. An examination of both Part III
and Part IV of the Constitution elucidates the perspective towards labour. It
is evident that Part III predominantly encompasses civil rights, which are
justiciable in a court of law, while Part IV primarily consists of economic and
social rights that are not subject to enforcement in a court of law, though
has been held “fundamental to the governance of the country” and is sought
to be applied by the State in making laws.

It is pointed out by the First National Commission on Labour in its

reporti that Part IV of the Constitution gives a “broad picture of the
progressive philosophy on which the Indian Republic expects to function in
social, economic, political and international matters.” The Supreme Court,
through a catena of decisions, has upheld and extended the reach of
Fundamental Rights to the poorest of the poor.

3. Preamble of Indian Constitution and Labour Legislations

The Preamble to our Constitution states the objectives which it seeks to

establish and promote. The preamble states to secure to all its citizens:

“JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the
Nation”

These principles enshrined in the Preamble of our constitution provide the

bedrock for framing all labour and social legislation and their progressive
and creative interpretation in favour of the working classes. These principles
run through our labour legislations like invisible golden threads and provide
them strength and stamina to meet the aspirations of the working classes;
whether it is protective legislation, social security legislation, welfare
legislation or even industrial relations legislation, they all heavily lean
towards working classes due to the philosophy provided in the preamble.

The judicial pronouncement in Excel Wear Vs Union Of India ii, a private

manufacturing company, employing more than 15,000 workers decided to
shut down due to constant conflict with the workers. In this case, the
Supreme Court held that although Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees
the freedom to carry on trade, it does not guarantee the freedom to
discontinue such a trade as the livelihood of the people involved in such
trade depends on it. The court further explained that it took such a stance
as the Constitution adopts “Socialism” in its Preamble which means that it
is pro-labour. Additionally, in Balbir Kaur Vs Steel Authority Of Indiaiii,
the Supreme Court held that the term 'Socialism' in the Preamble when read
with Articles 14 and 16, adopts the principle of "equal pay for equal work"

4. Fundamental Rights and Labour Legislations

The Part III of the Constitution, encompassing Articles 14 to 35, addresses

Fundamental Rights. These rights are categorized as follows:
a) The Right to Equality (Articles 14 to 18)
b) The Right to Freedom (Articles 19 to 22)
c) The Right against Exploitation (Articles 23 to 24)
d) The Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25 to 30)
e) Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30)
f) The Right to Constitutional Remedies (Articles 32 to 35)
The judiciary, in interpreting the Fundamental Rights, has expanded the
scope of the term 'State' defined by Article 12, inclusive of entities such as
corporations and societies. Notable cases such as Som Prakash Rakhi vs.
Union of Indiaiv and Ajay Hasia vs. Kahlid Mujidv underscore the
application of these rights to various entities in labour-related matters.

Fundamental Rights, albeit guaranteed, are subject to reasonable

restrictions. Article 14, concerning the right to equality, allows for
reasonable classification, as absolute equality is impractical. Judicial
precedents like Charanjit Lal Choudhary vs. Union of Indiavi and
Bharatiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Munch vs. Union of Indiavii have elucidated
the parameters of such classifications, ensuring fairness and non-
discrimination in labour relations. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution
delineates the principle of Equality before the law. It signifies the absence of
any special privilege based on factors such as birth or creed, ensuring equal
treatment under the law for all individuals and classes. The essence lies in
ensuring that individuals in similar circumstances are treated equally, both
in terms of privileges granted and liabilities imposed by the law. Thus, the
guiding principle is to treat like cases alike, without discrimination based on
differences.

In Randhir Singh v. Union of Indiaviii the Supreme Court has held that
although the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared
by our Constitution to be a fundamental right, it is certainly a constitutional
goal under Articles 14, 16 and 39 (c) of the Constitution. This right can,
therefore, be enforced in cases of unequal scales of pay based on irrational
classification. The decision in Randhir Singh's case has been followed in
several cases by the Supreme Court. Article 16 ensures equality of
opportunity in employment under the State, with provisions for reasonable
classification and reservations for backward classes and religious
institutions.

Further, Article 19 guarantees freedom of association, trade, and speech, all

relevant to labour legislation. The freedom to form an association implies
also the freedom to form or not to form, to join or not to join an association
or union. In All India Bank Employees Association v. The Notational
Industrial Tribunalix and Balakotiah v. Union of Indiax, the Apex Court
unanimously affirmed that persons have a fundamental right to form Trade
Unions i.e. association under Article 19(1)(c). In Damayanti v. Union of India
the Supreme Court about the right to form an association, said, "necessarily
'implies that the person forming the association has also the right to continue
to be associated with only those whom they voluntarily admit in the
association. Any law by which members are introduced in the voluntary
association without any option being given to the members to keep them out,
or any law which takes away the membership of those who have voluntarily
joined it, will be a law violating the right to form an association"

Article 21, guaranteeing the right to life and personal liberty, has been
expansively interpreted by the judiciary to include the right to live with
dignity, as seen in cases such as Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of
Indiaxi, the Supreme Court held that the fundamental right to live with
human dignity, as interpreted under Article 21 by the Court in Francis
Mullen's Casexii, is assured to every individual in the country. This right,
derived from Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly clauses (e) and
(f) of Article 39, and Articles 41 and 42, encompasses protection of health
and strength of workers, opportunities for children's healthy development,
access to education, and just and humane working conditions, including
maternity relief. While these principles are not directly enforceable in court,
where legislation already exists to provide these essentials, the State is
obligated to ensure compliance with such laws. Failure to do so would
constitute a denial of the right to live with human dignity as enshrined in
Article 21, especially considering Article 256, which mandates the executive
power of every State to ensure compliance with laws enacted by Parliament
and existing laws applicable in the State.

Articles 23 and 24 provide safeguards against exploitation, prohibiting

forced labour and the employment of children below 14 years in hazardous
industries. Article 23 prohibits traffic in human being and beggar and other
similar forms of forced labour. The second part of this article declares that
any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in
accordance with the law. Clause (2) however permits the State to impose
compulsory services for public purposes provided that in making so it shall
not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class
or any of them. 'Traffic in human beings' means selling and buying men and
women like goods and includes immoral traffic in women and children for
immoral or other purposes.

Though slavery is not expressly mentioned in Article 23, it is included in the

expression 'traffic in human being'. It has been held by the Supreme Court
that the term “slavery” includes economic slavery as well. Judicial
interventions, exemplified by cases like People's Union for Democratic
Rights vs. Union of Indiaxiii, have ensured the enforcement of these
provisions and the rehabilitation of affected individuals. In this, the Court
held that every form of forced labour is within the inhibition of Article 23,
and it makes no difference whether the person who is forced to give his
labour or service to another is renumerated or not. Even if remuneration is
paid, labour supplied by a person would be hit by Art. 23 if it is forced
labour i.e. supplied not willingly but as a result of force or compulsion. The
Court also stated that the term “force” be construed to not only include
physical or legal force, but also force arising from the compulsion of
economic circumstances i.e. remuneration received for, is less than the
running minimum wage.

The Article 24 prohibits the employment of children below 14 years of age in

factories and hazardous employment. This provision is certainly in the
interest of public health and the safety of life of children. Children are assets
of the nation. That is why Article 39(e) imposes upon the State an obligation
to ensure that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the
tender age of the children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by
economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength.
In the case of M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Naduxiv, Mr. MC Mehta
undertook to invoke Article 32, enabling the Court to look into the violation
of the fundamental rights of children guaranteed to them under Article 24.
The Court observed, that the concerned industry is qualified as a hazardous
industry and in contravention to Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation)
Act, 1986. Thus employing children under the age of 14 years in this
industry is prohibited.

Articles 32 to 35 secure the right to constitutional remedies, ensuring access

to justice. The judiciary's innovative approach, exemplified in cases like
People's Union for Democratic Rights and Bandhua Mukti Morcha
through guidelines, has facilitated public interest litigation to address
exploitation and injustice, particularly concerning labor rights.
 5. Directive Principles of State Policy and Labour Legislations
The Directive Principles specifically contain goals which are intrinsically

connected with labour law:

a. Adequate means of livelihood.

b. Operation of the economic system does not result in the

concentration of wealth and means of production to the
common detriment.

c. Equal pay for equal work.

d. No abuse of health and strength of workers.

e. Right to work and public assistance in case of inter

alia unemployment.

f. Provision for just and humane conditions of work and maternity

benefits.

g. Provision for securing living wage for workers.

h. Take steps to secure the participation of workers in the

management of industries.

Articles 36 to 51 comprise Part IV of the Constitution of India, focusing on

the principles of economic democracy, socio-political freedoms, and the
framework of the Welfare State. In the landmark case of Minerva Mills vs.
Union of Indiaxv, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for harmony
between Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights, rejecting the notion of
Directives being subordinate to Fundamental Rights. Additionally, laws
inconsistent with Directives were deemed unreasonable, while actions aimed
at fulfilling Directives were regarded as reasonable, as evidenced by the case
of Kasturi vs. State of J. & K. (S.C. 1992)xvi. Against this backdrop,
several Directives integral to labour jurisprudence warrant examination:

Article 38 emphasizes the state's obligation to promote social welfare by

ensuring a just social, economic, and political order, aiming to minimize
income inequality and eliminate disparities in status, facilities, and
opportunities. Articles 39 delineate policies to secure citizens' right to
livelihood, equitable distribution of material resources, prevention of wealth
concentration, equal pay for equal work, protection of workers' health, and
provisions for children's well-being and protection against exploitation.

Article 41 mandates the state to provide for the right to work, education,
and public assistance for unemployment, old age, sickness, disablement,
and other instances of destitution. Article 42 directs the state the right to
just and humane working conditions and encompasses provisions for
medical care, safety, and overall physical well-being, including leisure time.
Judicial pronouncements, exemplified by cases like Manohar Lal vs. State
of Punjab (SC 1961)xvii, have acknowledged the right to leisure time through
regulated working hours, rest intervals, weekly holidays, earned leave, and
other benefits. Article 43 urges the state to strive for fair wages, decent
working conditions, leisure opportunities, and the promotion of cottage
industries in rural areas.

These articles envision labour legislation as reasonable restrictions on

certain fundamental rights, such as freedom of business, ensuring, for
example, the payment of minimum bonuses even during periods of financial
loss, as seen in the case of Jalan Trading vs. Aneyxviii. Furthermore, the
insertion of Article 43A through the 42nd Amendment emphasizes the
participation of workers in the management of enterprises, transitioning
them from mere laborers to partners invested in the success of the
enterprise, as highlighted in cases such as Hindustan Tin Works vs.
Employers (SC 1979)xix and Gujarat Steel Tubes vs. Mazdoor Sabha (SC
1980)xx.

However, despite the emphasis on rights and obligations, the insertion of

Article 51A—Fundamental Duties—fails to address the duty or moral
obligation to refrain from actions such as slowdowns or strikes without
adhering to legal formalities. This omission underscores a gap in the legal
framework concerning labor relations.

6. Judicial Wisdom of the Courts and Labour Legislations

The Indian judiciary's adeptness in harmonizing Fundamental Rights with

Directive Principles stands as a testament to its unique judicial wisdom.

This harmonious construction has enabled courts to uphold legislation

geared towards social justice, aligning with Directive Principles that serve as

reasonable restrictions on certain fundamental rights, thus serving the

public interest. Notably, the courts have recognized the economic upliftment

of workers as integral to the nation's progress and have remained steadfast

in ensuring compliance with labour laws designed for the welfare of the

working class.

In a myriad of cases addressing diverse aspects of labour laws, spanning

from the validity of minimum wages to public interest litigation, the courts
have consistently prioritized the economic well-being of workers. They have
vigilantly guarded against violations of labour laws. The right to just and
humane working conditions encompasses provisions for medical care,
safety, and overall physical well-being, including leisure time. Judicial
pronouncements, exemplified by cases like Manohar Lal vs. State of
Punjab (SC 1961), have acknowledged the right to leisure time through
regulated working hours, rest intervals, weekly holidays, earned leave, and
other benefits.

Effective labour legislations are indispensable to ensure and regulate these

rights. It's noteworthy that the norms outlined in various enactments
represent the minimum standards, with room for negotiation between
employers and workers or adjudication by industrial courts for necessary
improvements. In addressing issues such as bonded labour, child labour,
sweated labour, contract labour, or sexual harassment in the workplace,
courts have taken proactive measures. They have directed executive and
legislative bodies to establish suitable arrangements for security and
welfare. Landmark cases like the Air India Case (SC 1997)xxi and
Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan (SC 1997) xxii illustrate the judiciary's
proactive stance in recommending measures for preventing sexual
harassment and ensuring the welfare of workers.

Furthermore, ensuring job security for workers is paramount in

safeguarding their rights to just and humane working conditions. Indian
laws have stringent provisions against wrongful dismissal, empowering
courts to order reinstatement of wrongfully dismissed workers. Through
seminal judgments like Bharat Bank Ltd. Delhi vs. their employees (SC
1950)xxiii, the judiciary has underscored the industrial tribunal's authority to
establish new rights and obligations necessary for maintaining industrial
harmony, going beyond mere interpretation of contractual agreements.

7. Conclusion
It is pertinent to observe that the quest to secure the fundamental
rights of workers worldwide has been an ongoing struggle, leading to
significant shifts in judicial perspectives. Presently, labor rights are codified
in the statutory laws of nearly every nation. However, considerable efforts
are still needed to ensure that all workers can effectively exercise their rights
and lead dignified lives within civilized societies. As evidenced, the
Constitution of India has demonstrated a proactive stance in safeguarding
the rights and privileges of workers, aiming to foster a standard of living
characterized by decency and dignity. Nevertheless, substantial challenges
persist, particularly concerning workers in the unorganized sector, including
those subjected to bonded labour, child labour, female labour, sweatshop
labour, and agricultural labour. While the Constitution inherently possesses
the capacity to address these issues, the mechanisms intended to
implement its provisions have often fallen short, failing to fully realize its
noble objectives. Consequently, despite the noble intentions enshrined in
the Constitution, labourers in these sectors continue to face exploitation
even after five decades of independence. It is evident that concerted efforts
are imperative to rectify these shortcomings and ensure the effective
protection of labour rights for all segments of society.

References
i
National Labour Commission, Report of the National Commission on Labour (Ministry of
Labour and Employment and Rehabilitation, 1969) para 6.7.
ii
Excel Wear Vs Union Of India, 1979 SCR (1) 009.
iii
Balbir Kaur Vs Steel Authority Of India, 2000 (6) SCC 493 :: AIR 2000 SC 1596.
iv
Som Prakash Rakhi vs. Union of India, 1981 (1) SCC 449.
v
Ajay Hasia vs. Kahlid Mujid, (1981) 1 SCC 722.
vi
Charanjit Lal Choudhary vs. Union of India, 1951 AIR 41.
vii
Bharatiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Munch vs. Union of India, 2003 (4) BOM SR 189.
viii
Randhir Singh v. Union of India, 1982 (1) SCC 618.
ix
All India Bank Employees Association v. The Notational Industrial Tribunal, 1962 SCR (3)
269.
x
Balakotiah v. Union of India, 1958 AIR 232.
xi
Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161 : AIR 1984 SC 802.
xii
Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors (1981) 1 SCC 608 :
AIR 1981SC 746.
xiii
People's Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India, 1983 SCR (1) 456.
xiv
M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1997 SC 699.
xv
Minerva Mills vs UOI, AIR 1980 SC 1789.
xvi
Kasturi vs. State of J. & K. 1980 AIR 1992
xvii
Manohar Lal vs. State of Punjab, 1961 SCR (2) 343.
xviii
Jalan Trading vs. Aney, AIR 1979 SC 233.
xix
Hindustan Tin Works vs. Employers, 1979 SCC (2) 80.
xx
Gujarat Steel Tubes vs. Mazdoor Sabha, 1980 SCR (2) 146.
xxi
Air India Statutory Corporation vs United Labour Union & Ors, Civil Appeal No.
15532/15534 of 1996.
xxii
Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011.
xxiii
Bharat Bank Ltd. Delhi vs. their employees, AIR 1950 SC 188.