It is strange that there are certain MYSTERIES surrounding the Labour Laws that escape the attention of even seasoned HRM practitioners.
It is a valid and fair assumption that a considerable amount of thoughts and deliberation go into the making of any Act; .every "section", "clause" and nuances are discussed, debated and deliberated, before it is passed by the Legislature.
When it is notified, the Executive who has the responsibility to implement it, frames Rules for its implementation.
However, there can still be some gaps or grey areas, in which case such incidences are referred to the Judiciary, who interprets the Law.
This is how the democracy functions. Laws are made, implemented and any disputes are solved. while interpreting the Law, the Judiciary takes it upon itself to go into the thinking and rationale of why any clause or provision has been put in by the Legislature, their motive, and the issues it addresses.
In the light of the above; it is surprising that certain terms, contingencies and provisions are interpreted by layman and general public to mean contrary or differently to what it may have been intended to.
Let us consider the case of the term "Dual employment" as used by employees while seeking clarification on how their interest in another vocation or pastime, shall be treated.
One can understand the well established cases of a government servant, say a police officer moonlighting as a paid hitman for a gangster company; a government doctor merrily taking money from patient as a part of his flourishing "private"practice; or a government teacher taking private tuition of students in an effort to "pass" them!
However, when used in industrial or business settings in the PRIVATE SECTOR; what is the purpose of government in banning dual employment ??
Does the government want that workers and employees should EARN LESS MONEY and lead a miserable life??
Does the government want that an industrialist should not employ more talented people, if a worker is capable of doing work ??
What is the purpose of having the prohibition of "dual employment" clause in Mines Act, Factories Act, Shops and Establishment or other such Acts ??
All these Acts are meant to regulate employment and provide for Safety, Working Conditions and Welfare etc. of employees and workers.
What happens if a worker has already completed his shift in one factory, and the employer sends him to another factory of his to work another shift ????
Of course, the employer will pay him for both shifts; but HOW LONG will the workmen survive if he does another shift ???
So is the case of a Miner who has worked his shifts in an underground mine; will he have enough energy left to work another shift in another mine of another company ???
What about a salesman who has made a hectic round of selling the company's product in his territory and the owner asks him to do another shift in another office ??
Or is the clause meant to prevent a female salesgirl in a private company or shop, to teach Bharatnatyam to children of her locality during her spare time on payment of certain tuition fees ???
A member has asked, whether his investment in a friend's partnership business can be called "dual employment" by his employer and is he liable to face the "consequences"????
I think knowing the purpose, background and rationale behind any Act or its provisions will make us more proficient in interpreting the Laws; which is a very relevant skill for any HR professionals.
I invite more inputs on this from our members.
It is a valid and fair assumption that a considerable amount of thoughts and deliberation go into the making of any Act; .every "section", "clause" and nuances are discussed, debated and deliberated, before it is passed by the Legislature.
When it is notified, the Executive who has the responsibility to implement it, frames Rules for its implementation.
However, there can still be some gaps or grey areas, in which case such incidences are referred to the Judiciary, who interprets the Law.
This is how the democracy functions. Laws are made, implemented and any disputes are solved. while interpreting the Law, the Judiciary takes it upon itself to go into the thinking and rationale of why any clause or provision has been put in by the Legislature, their motive, and the issues it addresses.
In the light of the above; it is surprising that certain terms, contingencies and provisions are interpreted by layman and general public to mean contrary or differently to what it may have been intended to.
Let us consider the case of the term "Dual employment" as used by employees while seeking clarification on how their interest in another vocation or pastime, shall be treated.
One can understand the well established cases of a government servant, say a police officer moonlighting as a paid hitman for a gangster company; a government doctor merrily taking money from patient as a part of his flourishing "private"practice; or a government teacher taking private tuition of students in an effort to "pass" them!
However, when used in industrial or business settings in the PRIVATE SECTOR; what is the purpose of government in banning dual employment ??
Does the government want that workers and employees should EARN LESS MONEY and lead a miserable life??
Does the government want that an industrialist should not employ more talented people, if a worker is capable of doing work ??
What is the purpose of having the prohibition of "dual employment" clause in Mines Act, Factories Act, Shops and Establishment or other such Acts ??
All these Acts are meant to regulate employment and provide for Safety, Working Conditions and Welfare etc. of employees and workers.
What happens if a worker has already completed his shift in one factory, and the employer sends him to another factory of his to work another shift ????
Of course, the employer will pay him for both shifts; but HOW LONG will the workmen survive if he does another shift ???
So is the case of a Miner who has worked his shifts in an underground mine; will he have enough energy left to work another shift in another mine of another company ???
What about a salesman who has made a hectic round of selling the company's product in his territory and the owner asks him to do another shift in another office ??
Or is the clause meant to prevent a female salesgirl in a private company or shop, to teach Bharatnatyam to children of her locality during her spare time on payment of certain tuition fees ???
A member has asked, whether his investment in a friend's partnership business can be called "dual employment" by his employer and is he liable to face the "consequences"????
I think knowing the purpose, background and rationale behind any Act or its provisions will make us more proficient in interpreting the Laws; which is a very relevant skill for any HR professionals.
I invite more inputs on this from our members.