Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. In the writ petitions apart from challenging the D.O. dated 20.03.2020 issued by the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, order dated 29.03.2020 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Home affairs, in exercise of powers under Section 10(2)(l) of Disaster Management Act, 2005, the vires of Section 10(2)(l) of Disaster Management Act, 2005, has also been questioned, in event, Section 10(2)(l) is interpreting as conferring power to Central Government to direct the private employers to make full payment of wages to the employees during the period of lockdown. In few of the writ petitions, directions have also been sought to subsidise 70 to 80 percent of the wages for the lockdown period by utilising funds collected by Employee State Insurance Corporation or the PM Cares Fund or through any other Government funds/schemes. To understand the nature of relief in different writ petitions, it shall be sufficient to refer reliefs claimed in few of the writ petitions since in other writ petitions reliefs claimed are more or less similar. In W.P.(Civil) D.No.10983/2020, Ficus Pax Limited Private Limited and others versus Union of India and others, the Union of India had filed a common counter affidavit and prayed that the counter affidavit be adopted in other writ petitions referred to in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit. W.P.(Civil) Diary No.10983/2020 is being treated as leading writ petition. Various interventions applications have also been filed in the leading writ petition. The intervention applications filed in the leading writ petition are allowed.

3. The petitioner in W.P.(C)Diary No.10983 of 2020 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of packaging with eleven factories spread across seven states. The petitioner is registered as Medium Industry (manufacturing) under Micro, Small, Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. The petitioner company before the lockdown employed 176 permanent workers and 939 contract workers across all its factories, warehouses and offices. The petitioner’s case is that after the lockdown period although petitioner being in a supply chain of several essential items such as pharmaceuticals, food products has been permitted to operate but its business has been reduced to the level of near 5-6 percent. The petitioner challenges the order dated 29.03.2020 and the D.O. dated 20.03.2020 as being violative of Article 14, Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

4. The petitioner’s case is that notifications are arbitrary, illegal, irrational and unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law including Article 14, Article 19(1)(g). Notifications are unreasonable and arbitrary interference with the rights of petitioner Employers under Article 19(1)(g). Notifications are also contrary to the principles of Equal work Equal Pay and also No work No pay, for it does not differentiate between the workers who are working during the lockdown period in establishment such as the petitioner who have been permitted to operate during the lockdown period and the workers who had not worked at all.

24. It is submitted that when the authority had declared a lockdown, it is also liable to provide for the consequences of the lockdown. In event, the order dated 29.03.2020 struck down, the very lockdown order will be arbitrary and it is also liable to be struck down. The Government of India has offered Economic Stimulus package to all Small and Medium Industries to enable them to cope with the current financial situation so as to ensure that they can cope with the burden of payment of wages and continue to be viable.