- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
SC: No action against employers for failing to pay wages amid lockdown
The Supreme Court on June 12 ordered that there will be no coercive action against employers who did not comply with a March 29 government notification directing companies to pay wages to employees for 54 days during the lockdown period. “No coercive action against employers till July last week,” said the top court. It emphasized that employers and employees should talk and settle...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Supreme Court on June 12 ordered that there will be no coercive action against employers who did not comply with a March 29 government notification directing companies to pay wages to employees for 54 days during the lockdown period. “No coercive action against employers till July last week,” said the top court. It emphasized that employers and employees should talk and settle the matter.
A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.R. Shah asked the employers to negotiate a settlement with their employees. The bench added that companies that operated during lockdown, but were not operating on full strength too should hold settlement talks with their employees. The bench asked the Centre to file a detailed reply on petitions challenging the notification.
The Supreme Court noted that in case the talks failed, parties could approach the Labour Department, which could facilitate a settlement, but efforts should be made to settle disputes between workers and employers. The Court emphasized that the private establishments and workers sit together to negotiate to settle disputes relating to wages. The bench also asked state governments to facilitate such settlements and submit reports before the labour commissioners. The Supreme Court emphasized that “piecemeal consideration” cannot be made, and Centre and state governments should circulate court order through labour departments to facilitate settlements. It has asked the Centre to file an additional affidavit in 4 weeks, and scheduled the next hearing on the matter in July last week. The bench noted that workers who are willing to work should be allowed to work notwithstanding disputes regarding wages.