Origin of Concept of Labour Welfare in India

Labour welfare activities arose in colonial India in

reply to the need of cheap labours when; following
the abolition of slavery in 1833, British colonies
started importing Indian labours. British
government passed legislations which led to the
development of the concept of labour welfare in
colonial India. The Apprentices Act of 1850 was
passed with the objective of helping poor and
orphan children to learn various trades by
apprenticing them to craftsmen. The Fatal
Accidents Act of 1853 aimed at providing
compensation to the families of workmen who lost
their lives as a result of an ‘‘actionable wrong.”

It was the Factories Act of 1881 which paved the

way for the foundation of series of labour laws with
the objective of bringing improvements in the
working conditions of labours. The International
Labour Organization (ILO) in its founding year, in
1919, recognised the importance of labour in the
economic and social reconstruction of the world
and suggested some changes in labour welfare
schemes operating in India. The then government
of the day, subsequently, enacted the Factories Act
of 1922, which provided for the cap of 60 hours a
week and 11 hours a day for both men and
woman. The minimum age for child worker was set
at 12.

Definition of Labour Welfare

The concept of labour welfare is a broad concept.

It connotes a condition of well-being, happiness,
satisfaction, conservation and development of
human resource.1

The Committee on Labour Welfare, 1969, noted

that “labour welfare includes such services, as
facilities and amenities as adequate canteen, rest
and recreational facilities, sanitary and medical
facilities, arrangement for travel to and from work
and for the accommodation of the workers
employed at a distance from their homes and such
other services amenities and facilities as contribute
to improve the condition under which workers are
employed.”2

Labour Rights and Indian Constitution

Indian constitution provides numerous safeguards

for the protection of labour rights. These
safeguards are in the form of fundamental rights
and the Directive principle of State policy.

Articles 14,19,21,23 and 24 comprise of

fundamental rights promised under part III of the
Constitution. Articles 38, 39, 39A, 41, 42, 43,43A
and 47 form part of the Directive Principles of
State Policy under Part IV of the Constitution, but
they are not enforceable in a court of law.

Article 39, 39A, 41, 42, 43 and 43A collectively can

be termed “Magna Carta of working class in India.”

Let us have a brief overview of these Articles‐

Article 14 commands State to treat any person
equally before the law.

Article (19) (1) (c) grants citizens the right to form

association or unions.

Article 21 promises protection of life and personal

liberty.

Article 23 prohibits forced labour.

Article 24 prohibits employment of children below

the age of fourteen years.

Article 39(a) provides that the State shall secure to

its citizens equal right to an adequate means of
livelihood.

Article 39A provides that the State shall secure the

equal opportunities for access to justice to its
citizens and ensure that such opportunities are not
denied by reason of economic or other disabilities.

Article 41 provides that within the limits of its

economic capacity the State shall secure for the
Right to work and education.

Article 42 instructs State to make provisions for

securing just and humane conditions of work and
for maternity relief.

Article 43 orders the State to secure a living wage,

decent condition of work and social and cultural
opportunities to all workers through legislation or
economic organisation. And

Article 43A provides for the participation of

workers in Management of Industries through
legislation.

Principle of equal pay for equal work and

Indian Supreme Court

The principle of equal pay for equal work is

enshrined in Article 39(d) of the Constitution. For
the first time, this principle was considered
in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of
India3 in 1962.Supreme Court then ruled that it
was not capable of being enforced in a court of
law. The Apex court changed its mind in 1982
when in Randhir Singh v. Union of India 4,
through a 3 judge bench, it held that:

The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, which

meant equal pay for everyone irrespective of sex,
was deducible from preamble and Articles 14,16
and 39(d) of the Constitution. The principle of
equal pay for equal work w as held to be
applicable to cases of unequal scales of pay, based
on classification or irrational classification, though
both sets of employees(engaged on temporary and
regular basis, respectively) performed identical
duties and responsibilities.
In DS Nakara v. Union of India5 (1983) where
the subject matter was related to pension, not a
wage, speaking through the constitutional
bench of five judges, it observed that:

Article 38(1) enjoins the State to strive to promote

the welfare of the people by securing and
protecting as effective as it may a social order in
which justice- social, economic and political shall
inform all institutions of the national life. In
particular, the State shall strive to minimise the
inequalities in income and endeavour to eliminate
inequalities in status, facilities and
opportunities.Art.39 (d) enjoins a duty to see that
there is equal pay for equal work for both men and
women and this directive should be understood
and interpreted in the light of the judgement of
this court in Randhir Singh v.Union of India (1982)

In Delhi Development Horticulture Employee's Union v.

Delhi Administration,[14]the Supreme Court has held that
daily wages workmen employed under the Jawahar
Rozgar Yojna has no right of automatic regularization
even though they have put in work for 240 or more days.
The petitioners who were employed on daily wages in the
Jawhar Rozgar Yojna filed a petition for their regular
absorption as a regular employees in the Development
Department of the Delhi Administration. They contended
that right to life, includes the right to livelihood and
therefore, right to work. The Court held that although
broadly interpreted and as a necessary logical corollary,
the right to life would include the right to livelihood and
therefore right to work but this country has so far not found
feasible to incorporate the right to livelihood as a
fundamental right in the Constitution. This is because the
country has so far not attained the capacity to guarantee
it, and not because it considers it any the less
fundamental to life. Advisedly therefore it has been placed
in the chapter on Directive Principles, Article 41 of which
enjoins upon the State to make effective provision for
securing the same, "within the limits of its economic
capacity and development". 

In D.K. Yadav v.J.M.A. Industries,[15] The Supreme Court

has held that the right to life enshrined under Article 21
includes the right to livelihood and therefore termination of
the service of a worker without giving him reasonable
opportunity of hearing in unjust, arbitrary and illegal. The
procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood
must meet the challenge of Article 14 and so it must be
right, just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.
In the instant case, the appellant was removed from
service. By the management of the M/s. J.M.A. Industries
Ltd. on the ground that he had willfully absented from duty
continuously for more than 8 days without leave or prior
permission from the management arid, therefore, "deemed
to have left the service of the company under clause 12(2)
(iv) of the Certified Standing Order. But the appellant
contended that despite his reporting to duty every day he
was not allowed to join duty without assigning any reason.
The Labour Court upheld the termination of the appellant
from service as legal. The Supreme Court, held that the
right to life enshrined under Article 21 includes right to
livelihood and 'therefore' before terminating the service of
an employee or workman fair play requires that a
reasonable opportunity should be given to him to explain
his case . The procedure prescribed for depriving a person
of livelihood must meet the requirement of Article 14, that
is, it must be right, just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful
or oppressive. In short, it must be in conformity of the rules
of natural justice, Article 21 clubs life with liberty, dignity of
person with means of livelihood without which the glorious
content of dignity of person would be reduced to animal
existence. The Court set aside the Labour Court award
and ordered his reinstatement with 50 percent back
wages.
n Deena v. Union of India [20] it was held that labour
taken from prisoners without paying proper remuneration
was "forced labour" and violative of Art. 23 of the
Constitution. The prisoners are entitled to payment of
reasonable wages for the work taken from them and the
Court is under duty to enforce their claim

I. DEFINITIONS

Article 1
For the purpose of this Convention:

 (a) the term national policy refers to the national

policy on occupational safety and health and the
working environment developed in accordance with
the principles of Article 4 of the Occupational Safety
and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155);
 (b) the term national system for occupational
safety and health or national system refers to
the infrastructure which provides the main framework
for implementing the national policy and national
programmes on occupational safety and health;
 (c) the term national programme on
occupational safety and health or national
programme refers to any national programme that
includes objectives to be achieved in a predetermined
time frame, priorities and means of action formulated
 to improve occupational safety and health, and means
to assess progress;
 (d) the term a national preventative safety and
health culture refers to a culture in which the right
to a safe and healthy working environment is respected
at all levels, where government, employers and workers
actively participate in securing a safe and healthy
working environment through a system of defined
rights, responsibilities and duties, and where the
principle of prevention is accorded the highest priority.
II. OBJECTIVE

Article 2
 1. Each Member which ratifies this Convention shall
promote continuous improvement of occupational safety
and health to prevent occupational injuries, diseases and
deaths, by the development, in consultation with the most
representative organizations of employers and workers, of
a national policy, national system and national
programme.
 2. Each Member shall take active steps towards
achieving progressively a safe and healthy working
environment through a national system and national
programmes on occupational safety and health by taking
into account the principles set out in instruments of the
International Labour Organization (ILO) relevant to the
promotional framework for occupational safety and
health.
 3. Each Member, in consultation with the most
representative organizations of employers and workers,
shall periodically consider what measures could be taken
 to ratify relevant occupational safety and health
Conventions of the ILO.
III. NATIONAL POLICY

Article 3
 1. Each Member shall promote a safe and healthy
working environment by formulating a national policy.
 2. Each Member shall promote and advance, at all
relevant levels, the right of workers to a safe and healthy
working environment.
 3. In formulating its national policy, each Member, in
light of national conditions and practice and in
consultation with the most representative organizations of
employers and workers, shall promote basic principles
such as assessing occupational risks or hazards; combating
occupational risks or hazards at source; and developing a
national preventative safety and health culture that
includes information, consultation and training.
IV. NATIONAL SYSTEM

Article 4
 1. Each Member shall establish, maintain,
progressively develop and periodically review a national
system for occupational safety and health, in consultation
with the most representative organizations of employers
and workers.
 2. The national system for occupational safety and
health shall include among others:
 (a) laws and regulations, collective agreements
where appropriate, and any other relevant instruments
on occupational safety and health;
  (b) an authority or body, or authorities or
bodies, responsible for occupational safety and health,
designated in accordance with national law and
practice;
 (c) mechanisms for ensuring compliance with
national laws and regulations, including systems of
inspection; and
 (d) arrangements to promote, at the level of the
undertaking, cooperation between management,
workers and their representatives as an essential
element of workplace-related prevention measures.
 3. The national system for occupational safety and
health shall include, where appropriate:
 (a) a national tripartite advisory body, or bodies,
addressing occupational safety and health issues;
 (b) information and advisory services on
occupational safety and health;
 (c) the provision of occupational safety and
health training;
 (d) occupational health services in accordance
with national law and practice;
 (e) research on occupational safety and health;
 (f) a mechanism for the collection and analysis
of data on occupational injuries and diseases, taking
into account relevant ILO instruments;
 (g) provisions for collaboration with relevant
insurance or social security schemes covering
occupational injuries and diseases; and
 (h) support mechanisms for a progressive
improvement of occupational safety and health
 conditions in micro-enterprises, in small and medium-
sized enterprises and in the informal economy.
V. NATIONAL PROGRAMME

Article 5
 1. Each Member shall formulate, implement,
monitor, evaluate and periodically review a national
programme on occupational safety and health in
consultation with the most representative organizations of
employers and workers.
 2. The national programme shall:
 (a) promote the development of a national
preventative safety and health culture;
 (b) contribute to the protection of workers by
eliminating or minimizing, so far as is reasonably
practicable, work-related hazards and risks, in
accordance with national law and practice, in order to
prevent occupational injuries, diseases and deaths and
promote safety and health in the workplace;
 (c) be formulated and reviewed on the basis of
analysis of the national situation regarding
occupational safety and health, including analysis of
the national system for occupational safety and health;
 (d) include objectives, targets and indicators of
progress; and
 (e) be supported, where possible, by other
complementary national programmes and plans which
will assist in achieving progressively a safe and healthy
working environment.
 3. The national programme shall be widely publicized
and, to the extent possible, endorsed and launched by the
highest national authorities.