SC Seeks Centre's Response on Implementation of MHA Order For Payment of Full Wages During Lockdown
Seeking the plan of action regarding implementation of Ministry of Home Affairs' Notification(s), which called for payment of full wages to Employees during Coronavirus lockdown, the Supreme Court on Monday directed the Centre to place its "policy on record" in this regard.A Bench comprising Justices NV Ramana, Sanjay Kishan Kaul & BR Gavai granted two weeks to the Centre to file its...
Seeking the plan of action regarding implementation of Ministry of Home Affairs' Notification(s), which called for payment of full wages to Employees during Coronavirus lockdown, the Supreme Court on Monday directed the Centre to place its "policy on record" in this regard.
A Bench comprising Justices NV Ramana, Sanjay Kishan Kaul & BR Gavai granted two weeks to the Centre to file its response as aforementioned while hearing a batch of petitions filed by private organisations, which challenged the MHA notifications neccesiting payment of full wages to employees & requisite non-termination during lockdown.
The petitions filed by three entitities, Mumbai-based firm, Nagreeka Exports; Karnataka-based company, Ficus Pax Private Limited; and Punjab based Ludhiana Hand Tools Association sought a common prayer.
While Nagreeka Exports withdrew its plea, Ficus Pax had challenged the constitutional validity of a March 20 and March 29 notification insinuated by the MHA, both of which stipulated payment of full wages to workers and employees during the period of lockdown, urging that the said notifications could turn "an otherwise stable and solvent industrial establishment, especially an MSME establishment, into insolvency and loss of control of business."
Ludhiana Hand Tools Association had averred that as organisations were also suffering financial losses during the lockdown, they must be exempted from paying their workmen during lockdown.
Additionally, the punjab based entity had specifically challenged the MHA order of March 24 vis-à-vis the Disaster Management Act, 2005 being violative of basic Constitutional tenets & Fundamental Rights, i.e. Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265 & 300.
Advocates Rajeev Roy, J. Cama & Abhay Nevagi led arguments of behalf of the Petitioner(s).