Stating that an act of force or violence is not always physical, a city industrial court has declared a Vikhroli-based agency guilty of unfair labour practice under the Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, for asking two of its workers to ‘sit at home’ in March 2020, when the pandemic-induced lockdown began and telling them, after the lifting of the lockdown, that their services were not required.
Industrial Court Member SB Parate said in the order last Thursday, that it has been held in various cases that an act of force or violence is not always physical. The action of the agency in asking the workers to stay home could be considered an act of force or violence under the Act, the court held.
It said the complainants had proved that the agency and its partners engaged in an unfair labour practice under the Act. It also ordered the agency to pay their legal dues, including notice pay, gratuity, etc.
Workers approached industrial court in August 2021 after they were terminated
Workers Shyam Bind and Jayram Bind had approached the industrial court in August 2021, against the agency, dealing in pharmaceutical products, and its three partners. They complained that they had been working with the agency since 2004. They had worked till March 2020, when they were asked to “sit at home”.
The duo said they began reporting to work continuously after the lockdown lifted, but were told their services were not required. The agency assured them, while doing so, that their dues would soon be paid.
The two then approached the court for a declaration of unfair labour practice under the law, adding that since they were terminated, that they be paid their legal dues. They had also sought that they be paid their salary from March 2020 till the date they filed the complaint.
Agency claimed one absented from work and other retired seeking dismissal of complaint
The agency had sought dismissal of their complaint and claimed that while one had absented himself from work for more than five months and hence, was terminated, the other was retired.
On their demand to be paid from March 2020 tillthe time of their filing a complaint in August 2021, the court said work was not given to them from March 2020, hence the termination could be said to be operative from then. It said the liability of paying wages for the lockdown period and up to the time of filing of the complaint could not be fastened upon the respondents.
