Wages Order not applicable to workers unpaid even before lockdown: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court passed an order that the Centre’s direction to states to ensure that all employers paid wages to their workers without any deduction during the lockdown would not be applicable for workers who remained unpaid for a long period even before the lockdown.

The Court was hearing two writ petitions filed by Premier Ltd, a heavy machinery manufacturing company from Pune in Maharashtra, and its employees union.

The company had challenged an order of the industrial court which directed the company to pay a part of wages to its workers, who had not been paid since May 2019.

The company’s employees union sought compliance of the Union Home Ministry’s order dated March 29, 2020 and a subsequent Maharashtra government resolution (GR) issued on March 31, 2020, directing employers to pay wages to all workers even during the lockdown period.

The state labour commission granted a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) to the company for shifting (the company decided to shift its plant from its original site to a new one in 2017) on the condition that it would pay full wages to its workers during the time the work remained suspended due to shifting of work.

However, the employees union complained that the workers remained unpaid since May 2019 till now. The employees union had earlier also filed a complaint before the industrial court on the ground of unfair labour practices.

The industrial court on March 3, 2020 had ordered the company to pay the salaries to its workers with effect from March 1 onwards before the 10th of each subsequent month.

The employees union moved the Bombay High Court claiming that the workers were yet to be paid the salaries for March seeking invocation of orders of the Centre and the state on not withholding payment during the Covid induced lockdown.

The high court bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Riyaz Chagla said the government orders were not applicable in the present case. The Court said, “To be deemed to be on duty one should be on duty on the date when the lockdown was declared. To be entitled to or for continuity of salary or wages during the lockdown, an employee/worker should receive the same till the month which is previous to closure on account of the lockdown.”

The court further held that since the issue was already being heard by the industrial court, therefore, the government orders issued for the lockdown could not be invoked to short circumvent an industrial dispute which was being adjudicated upon before the competent forum.

The company submissions stated that because of an “obstructionist approach” of the employees union, it had suffered loss of business and earnings. It further submitted that the Union Government’s order of March 29 on payment of wages had been subsequently withdrawn.

However, according to the Court, the withdrawal of the order had no bearing on the present case.

The Court observed that a conjoint reading of the Central Government order and the Maharashtra government resolution show that those directives have been issued to meet the situation arising out of the lockdown. According to the Court, the moot question in this case was whether the central government order and the Maharashtra government resolution could be invoked in a situation where the management and workmen were engaged in an industrial adjudication relating to non-payment of salary/ wages and suspension of work much prior to closure of the establishments due to the lockdown. The Court said, “In our view, the answer to this question would have to be in the negative.”

The High Court, however, directed the company to pay 50% of the pending wages to its workers and also directed the industrial court to complete hearing of the complaint within six months.