INTRODUCTION

India was a part of the global economic crisis during the Covid-19 pandemic, which affected the entire world. During India’s statewide lockdown in 2020, economic activity and output either completely stopped or drastically decreased, which led to the closure of numerous industries. As India suffered, numerous states at their level began managing the economic crisis independently.
Under “Section 5 of the Factories Act, 1948, the Gujarati government’s labour and employment department released a notification outlining temporary and improvised guidelines for the workers’ working conditions. According to Section 5 of the Factories Act of 1948, the state may exempt a factory from all or any of the act’s requirements in the event of a public emergency. The act is the result of labour unions’ long-running fight to protect workers’ rights to human dignity in workplaces that protect their health and safety”. The worker class was the ultimate victim of India’s industrial development since there was no law or legislation to protect and support them. By placing obligations and duties on employers, the Factories Act of 1948 protects the material and physical welfare of workers.
The appellant in this case is a trade union that has Trade Union Act of 1926 registration. Thousands of employees are members of this trade union. The Gujarati labour and employment department issued a notification, which the trade union is attempting to revoke. The Factories Act of 1948 grants workers certain rights, which are allegedly being curtailed by this notification. In this case, the appellant files a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India to have the state’s notification revoked on behalf of all the workers who were harmed by it.
According to the three-judge “Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha and Others vs. State of Gujarat” case, “Public Emergency” is the only need that must be met in order for section 5 of the Factories Act, 1948 to be applied.

FACTS

To stop the COVID-19 epidemic from spreading, the central government announced a statewide “lockdown on March 24, 2020”. The ongoing economy came to a complete halt as a result of this nationwide lockdown. This lockdown was repeatedly prolonged, including the second time it was enforced on April 14, 2020.
In accordance with “Section 5 of the Factories Act, the Gujarati government’s labour and employment department released a notification on April 17, 2020”. This notification freed all factories registered under the act from a number of regulations pertaining to adult workers’ weekly and daily work schedules, rest periods, etc. The period covered by this notification was April 20, 2020, to July 19, 2020.
The “Gujarat Government issued a second notification on July 20, 2020, which also contained similar content and aimed to extend the exemption granted to factories from July 20, 2020, to October 19, 2020. The first notification, issued on April 17, was valid for four months”.

ISSUE RAISED

1. Was the state government’s notification under section 5(5) of the Factories Act of 1948 valid?

APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The appellant’s counsel argues that the state government’s notifications under Section 5 of the Factories Act are void. The aforementioned act’s “Section 5 can only be used in the event of a Public Emergency. Section 5 defines a Public Emergency as a Grave Emergency, which is defined as a situation in which war, external aggression, or domestic unrest pose a threat to the security of India or any portion of the country”.
The counsel further argues that “lockdown” and “pandemic” do not fall within the definition of “public or grave emergency”. “Section 5 of the Factories Act and Article 352 of the Constitution both use the phrase “internal disturbance,” but they differ greatly in that while the President’s involvement is necessary in Article 352 of the Constitution, it can be used in Section 5 of the Factories Act” during the specified objective conditions, which should improve the situation.
According to the counsel, the notification exempted all factories under section 5 of the Factories Act, 1948. However, under “section 65(2), which suspends sections 51, 52, 54, and 56 when there is extraordinary work pressure, this condition was not present during the lockdown because the state exempted all factories without knowing what kind of work these factories were doing or what kind of manufacturing work the workers were required to perform”. By combining all the factors into one category, the state only did injustice to all the workers.
The council emphasized the need to pay overtime compensation. Since workers are working longer hours and putting in more effort, overtime pay should be double what is normally paid. However, the notification only adjusts overtime pay to the current wage, which violates workers’ fundamental rights under articles 23, 21, and 14 of the Constitution and violates the Minimum Wages Act of 1948 because it amounts to forced labour.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsel argues that the State Government’s notification under “Section 5 of the Factories Act is legitimate and that they haven’t infringed upon any fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 23, 21, and 14 of the Indian Constitution”. According to the government’s notification issued under “Section 5 of the Factories Act, in the event of a Public Emergency, the state may exclude any factory or class of factories from all or some of the act’s provisions”.
The counsel mentions the COVID-19 pandemic as an example for the term “public emergency.” Since the epidemic has disrupted the “social order of the country,” it is a public emergency. In order to save the state’s existence and integrity, emergency measures were implemented. The counsel further emphasizes that the notification was sent out in accordance with Section 5 of the Factory Act in order to ensure that the factors’ minimum production requirements were met. Sec. 65(2) is not the foundation for issuing the notification because there is no unusual work demand in the factory.
Further, the workers were only permitted to work three more hours, and their employers intended to pay them proportionately for those extra hours. The conditions are being implemented because it was also noted that the lockout is causing financial difficulties for the companies.

JUDGEMENT

It was held that “the court is cognizant that the respondent aimed to ameliorate the financial exigencies that were caused due to the pandemic and the subsequent lockdown. However, financial losses cannot be offset on the weary shoulders of the laboring workers who provide the backbone of the economy. Section 5 of the Factories Act could not have been invoked to issue a blanket notification that exempted all factories from complying with human working conditions and adequate compensation for overtime. As a response to a pandemic that did not result in an internal disturbance of nature, it caused a grave emergency whereby the security of India was threatened. In any event, no factory/classes of factory could have been exempted from compliance with the provision of the Factories Act unless an internal disturbance causes a grave emergency that threatens the security of the state so as to constitute a public emergency within the meaning of Section 5 of the Factories Act.”
The court further stated that “as a consequence of the judgement and in the interest of doing complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution, we direct that over time wages shall be paid in accordance with the provision of Section 59 of the Factories act to all eligible workers who have been working since the issuance of the notification.”
According to the ruling in the “Naga People’s Movement for Human Rights v. Union of India ” case, “although an internal disturbance is a cause for concern, it does not threaten the security of the country or a part thereof, unlike an armed rebellion which could pose a threat to the security of the country or a part thereof.”
Since the writ petition was granted, the Gujarat State labour and employment department’s notification was revoked, and the employers were also required to compensate the workers for the overtime they had worked.

CONCLUSION

It is evident that the applicant was treated as forced labour and did not receive additional compensation for the overtime they performed. The verdict was in support of the appointment as a result, and the notification was revoked along with the additional pay. Thus, the learnt court’s ruling should be respected because workers were the most impacted social group during the lockdown. In search of employment, some labourers relocate to cities from their hometowns. Although the COVID-19 lockout had a negative impact on these workers, they continued to work for their companies. The workers received their reward for their hard work, which they deserved since their additional hours worked were also placing further burden on their health.