Gujarat HC Addresses Plea Challenging Constitutional Validity of Factories Ordinance, 2020

Must Read

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Follow us

The Gujarat State Government passed the State Ordinance to Factories Act, 1948. The petitioners alleged that the said ordinance should render the Principal Act’ toothless’. The Gujarat High Court shall hear the plea on September 03, 2020.

Brief facts of the Case 

The Factories Act, 1948, was enacted to regulate the labour laws in India. The State Government have the power to amend the Principal Act by passing an ordinance without altering the basic structure. 

On 03.07.2020, the Government of Gujarat passed the State Ordinance to amend the definition of ‘factories’ as stated in Section 2(m) of the ActIt doubled the minimum requirement of workers for a manufacturing unit to be termed as a ‘factory’. Henceforth, factories with the aid of power should have 20 or more workers and factories without the aid of power shall have 40 or more workers. Moreover, the ordinance inserted Section 106B, whereby the State may make any or all offences compoundable in nature. The Principal Act provides for two years imprisonment and a fine of rupees one lakh to the occupier/ manager of the factory.

The petitioner, a trade union, has challenged the State Ordinance to be unconstitutional, arbitrary and illegal. It has alleged that the ordinance shall defeat the objective of the Principal Act rendering it ‘toothless’. 

Submissions before the Court

The petitioner submitted that the Act aims to improve working conditions, ensure the welfare of workers and further protect them against exploitation. The amendment of the minimum requirement of workers shall aid numerous factories in Gujarat to evade the applicability of the Principal Act. A majority of power aided manufacturing units in the State have more than ten but less than 20 workers. Hence, by virtue of the ordinance, many workers shall cease to seek protection under the Act. Moreover, it attacks the rights of the progressiveness of the Industrial State and its workmen’s humane conditions.

The petitioner contended that the insertion of Section 106B should provide an added advantage to the occupiers who already exert excessive bargaining power. The ordinance provides immunity against the omission of the occupier’s duty to ensure safety measures and hygienic working conditions. The violators shall be left at large on payment of certain compensatory amounts to the government rather than ensuring labour rights.

The Principal Act achieves the objective of socio-economic justice and hence, in consonance with the Preamble. The Act guarantees fundamental rights as under Part III and the Directive Principles as in Article 39 and 41 of the Constitution. However, the State Ordinance jeopardizes the aforementioned rights by amending the procedure and penalties under the Act. 

Prayer for relief

The present shall be heard by the court on 03.09.2020. The bench comprises of Justice R. M. Chaya and Justice I. J. Vora. The petitioner seeks directions to struck down the impugned ordinance as being ultra-vires the Constitution of India. The court may also quash and set aside all actions taken pursuant to the ordinance as void-ab-initio. 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay High Court in PIL for CBI Probe in Disha Salian Case

On the 26th of October 2020, the Apex Court heard the PIL praying for a CBI probe into the death of Disha Salian. The...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -