Is It Legal for Employers to Cut Wages During COVID-19 Lockdown? Let's Discuss the Real Impact

Government Advisory on Employment During COVID-19

The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, via advisory no. M-11011/08/2020-Media dated 20/03/2020, titled "In this critical time of the coronavirus (COVID-19) epidemic, the Ministry of Labour and Employment advises all public and private employers to support their employees and workers," states:

"In the backdrop of such a challenging situation, all the Employers of Public/Private Establishments are advised to extend their coordination by not terminating their employees, particularly casual or contractual workers, from jobs or reducing their wages. If any worker takes leave, he should be deemed to be on duty without any consequential deduction in wages for this period. Further, if the place of employment is to be made non-operational due to COVID-19, the employees of such a unit will be deemed to be on duty."

Legal Evaluation of "No Work No Pay" Principle

The question now remains that even after a non-ambiguous advisory from the government, some employers have not paid proper remuneration. The employers seem to wrongly rely on the legal principle of "NO WORK NO PAY." Let us now evaluate this from a legal perspective:

The principle was evaluated by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Union Of India Etc. Etc vs K.V. Jankiraman (1) as "The normal rule of 'no work no pay' is not applicable to cases where the employee, although he is willing to work, is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a case where the employee remains away from work for his own reasons, although the work is offered to him."

See this for full discussion: PAYMENT OF SALARIES DURING COVID-19 LOCKDOWN

"Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Union Of India Etc. Etc vs K.V. Jankiraman (1) as “The normal rule of "no work no pay" is not applicable to cases where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a case where the employee remains away from work for his own' reasons, although the work is offered to him.”
Shall highly appreciate if the Case reference number is quoted for ready reference of the Case.
Thanks

Dear All,

Just to clarify, the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, through advisory no. M-11011/08/2020-Media dated 20/03/2020, has issued guidelines that are applicable to non-workman employees as well. Kindly respond accordingly.

Thank you.

Yes, it is an advisory. Let me break this down and analyze this position legally. We are under lockdown. A lockdown is imposed under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. I have been told and mentioned that I have still not completed my research on this issue, that an advisory has the force of law. This question is currently being tested by a writ before the honorable Supreme Court. However, my research is also inclined towards the view that under the Disaster Management Act, the government can enforce these advisories as notifications. https://www.indialegallive.com/const...ny-to-sc-97132

I would request the seniors to express their views on this issue. We can certainly utilize their experience in the analysis of such an unprecedented issue.

Utilization of ESI Fund for Employers' Financial Burden

How could the ESI fund be utilized to meet the financial burden of employers? There are millions of employees benefiting from ESI by receiving medical assistance, disablement benefits, insurance claim settlements, and death compensation benefits.

Regarding the MHA order, the Supreme Court has refused to stay the order but has granted the Centre two weeks to demonstrate how it will implement the MHA order for direct payment of full wages during the COVID-19 lockdown. The hearing will commence after this period, and it will take additional time for a judgment to be reached on this matter.

Let's wait until that time.

Impact of Wage Denial During Lockdown

My understanding is that if workers are denied wages during the lockdown period, they would be compelled to leave their homes, which would defeat the very objective of the lockdown. Today, the Supreme Court has refused to stay the order directing employers to pay full salaries. The irony is that while the government insists that employers should pay full salaries to workers, the EPFO is covering the employees' share of contributions. Why is this the case? When employees can receive a salary without working, why don't they contribute their share? Similarly, the ESIC is making arrangements to pay unemployment allowances to workers. When the government claims that nobody will remain unemployed, how does the question of unemployment allowance arise?

Please follow the link also: [Madhu T K: Liability of employers to pay salary during COVID-19 lockdown period](http://madhu-t-k.blogspot.com/2020/04/liability-of-employers-to-pay-salary.html)

Hello,

I need clarification on the same subject. My company has deducted the travel allowances for all our employees since we are working from home and not actually commuting for work. I wanted to understand if there will be any legal implications on this. Or has there been any circular passed on the above subject?

Thank you in advance.

Hello Everyone,

I would like to take a moment to ask: I have employees who haven't accepted the work-from-home concept. Are they liable for a deduction in salary?

Traveling Allowance and Reimbursement

Traveling allowance, per se, is an allowance fixed for a month as part of an employee's salary. In case an employee is absent without leave, naturally, their loss of pay (LOP) will be based on a salary that includes this component. However, traveling expenses reimbursement is not part of the salary, and such components can be withdrawn during a non-functioning period.

Still, we can argue that traveling or conveyance allowance is paid to the employee to enable them to commute to the workplace from their residence. Therefore, it is not payable if they have not come to work due to a lockdown.

Dear All, my company is pressuring us to submit our resignation during this lockdown period. When I refused, they insisted I report to the office regardless, knowing that I live in Noida and my office is in Gurgaon. It is not possible for me as the police are not allowing movement across the borders without a movement pass, and they are not issuing one for this purpose. They may declare me absconding. Kindly suggest what to do and whom to approach. I have been working in this organization for the last 8.5 years. Can I file a complaint at the police station, CM window, or MHA? Please advise.

COVID-19 Lockdown and Employment Issues

This is not an isolated case; there are many cases similar to yours. When the entire region is in the red zone, how could your company alone open? If opened, they cannot expect an employee staying in a containment area to report to duty. Therefore, you should escalate the issue to the concerned department and get a pass for movement.

During the lockdown period, the company cannot insist that employees remain at the headquarters. COVID-19 lockdown should be treated as a special case. If an employee leaves the HQ to stay at home, which is away from the place of work, you cannot blame the employee or ask them to be at the HQ and available in the office on call. Therefore, legally, the company cannot declare you as absconding. If they terminate you, claiming that you failed to report to the office, take the matter to the appropriate authorities. It is evident that the company is trying to avoid trouble by terminating employees, which is why they are suggesting that you resign. If you resign, you will lose your lien; therefore, don't do that.

Hello, my employer has deducted 60% of the salary of all employees. (Please find the enclosed HR email for your reference.)

Current Work Situation

We are currently working on an After Sales Service Project. My engineers have to visit customer homes for TV installation and repairs at the doorstep. Sometimes, customers also visit our service center. Therefore, working from home is not applicable for them during this period.

Only the manager or the person in charge (PIC) can work from home as they need to respond to emails and customer calls.

Question on Salary Deduction Legality

Is it legal to deduct 60% of the salary in this situation?

Government Orders on Employee Wages During COVID-19

The government has issued orders to pay full wages to all employees, including contract workers and casual workers. This has been challenged by various employers in the courts, and the court verdict is yet to come.

Challenges of Paying Full Salaries

Reducing salary is not an appropriate action for the employer, but without any revenue, how can an employer pay full salaries? Everyone is interested in receiving a full salary without considering the sources of funds. This is a situation we have never faced in the past. Therefore, if you are asked to work for a lesser salary, the only option available is to leave the present company and join another. But do you think you will get a job? Every company is suffering from overstaffing, and in this scenario, do you think you will get a salary comparable to what you were receiving prior to the lockdown?

That is a good decision by the Supreme Court, and we support it. However, is it necessary to pay PF contributions for employees because we have decided not to deduct EPF contributions of 12% from employees' salaries, and full salaries shall be paid to them for the lockdown period?

Can we file a nil return for EPF for the month of April 2020 because our company didn't qualify under PMGKY, as 90%+ of our staff's salaries are above 15,000?

The PF contribution (15,000 x 90) * 24% + admin charges is an unbearable expense in this period with no source of income.

Please help in this matter.

Thanks in advance.

Employee Contributions and Government Announcements

If you do not qualify for the so-called benefit announced by the government, why didn't you deduct employees' share of the contribution? If employees have been paid full salaries, why don't you deduct employees' share? The announcement of bearing employees' share itself was wrong because PF accrues only when salary is paid. When an employee receives his salary, he can certainly pay his share of the contribution as well. It is okay if the government is bearing the employer's share of the contribution because when the employer is in trouble and amidst if he has to pay salary as well as statutory contribution, it will lead to further losses for him. But bearing the employees' share is meaningless just because PF becomes payable only when he receives his salary.

Therefore, you cannot file a Nil return nor can you abstain from paying contributions. If you do so, it will attract penal actions. Obviously, you can utilize the grace period given by the EPFO.

Handling Employee Non-Compliance During COVID-19

We are a micro-industry under MSME and are trying to give salaries to our employees. One part of my organization is working from home, while the other consists of helpers and technicians who cannot work due to the COVID situation. In this critical time, we are facing a tough problem with one of my most arrogant employees who can easily work from home but has not worked or shared the assigned work, nor attended any meetings in the past 55 days. Now that my office is open, he has not reported nor informed us of his absence. After contacting him, he mentioned that he couldn't come for one day, but since then, he has not reported to the office. As a result, we have issued a termination letter and requested him to collect his final paycheck as per the company policy and return the company laptop and other work-related items.

He is not responding to emails and only sent a message via WhatsApp to HR, asking for the full amount to be transferred per government rules for COVID-19. He mentioned that after receiving the money, he will return the company laptop and data, as he has crucial project-related data with a deadline.

As an HR professional, please advise on the best course of action. It is clearly stated in the appointment letter that he must surrender all data and company property for the full and final process. He seems unwilling to work or return anything.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]

To further address the captioned matter, now, in a significant move, the Supreme Court on Friday passed an interim order stating that no coercive action should be taken against employers for not complying with the directions of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for full payment of wages to employees during the lockdown period. The interim order will be in operation until the Central Government files a reply to the petitions challenging the direction passed by the MHA on March 29.

Orders have been ceased from 18/05/2020.

Hon'ble SC has quashed orders of MHA mandating payment during the lockdown period.

Nagreeka Exports Ltd v/s UOI. SC

Reference: https://www.barandbench.com/news/law...yment-of-wages

Dear Sir/Madam, I am five months pregnant and have been working in an IT company for the last year. As soon as I informed my employer about my pregnancy in April, my boss/HR moved me to a variable pay structure, stating in an email that it is only for this quarter. I will receive only 50% of my salary until June, and the remaining 50% will be provided based on company and my performance at the end of June.

Later, at the start of May, they wanted me to resign. Upon refusing, they proposed to keep me as an employee with 0% payment, and later they wanted me to agree to 25% payment. They also said I wouldn't receive the remaining 50% of my salary for these three months because my role or team became redundant and the company is facing a financial crisis due to the COVID-19 situation.

Yesterday, I received a termination notice email from my employer with reference to an agreement that states, "Clause 10.1 states that - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, the Company may terminate the Employee’s employment under this Agreement without assigning any reason upon issuing 30 (thirty) days prior written notice to the Employee (or 1 (one) month’s remuneration in lieu of such notice)."

All these issues started as soon as I informed my employer about my pregnancy and sought maternity leave. Let me know if further information is required. Kindly help or guide me as soon as possible.

Dear Sir/Madam, I am five months pregnant and have been working in a private organization for the last year. As soon as I informed my employer about my pregnancy in April, my boss/HR moved me to a variable pay structure, stating in an email that it is only for this quarter. I will receive only 50% of my salary until June, and the remaining 50% will be provided based on company and my performance.

Later, at the start of May, they wanted me to resign. Upon refusing, they proposed to keep me as an employee with zero payment. Later, they wanted me to agree to 25% payment. They also said I wouldn't get the remaining 50% of my salary for these three months because my role or team became redundant and the company is facing a financial crisis due to the COVID-19 situation.

Yesterday, I received a termination notice email from my employer, referencing an agreement which states: "Clause 10.1 states that - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, the Company may terminate the Employee’s employment under this Agreement without assigning any reason upon issuing 30 (thirty) days prior written notice to the Employee (or 1 (one) month’s remuneration in lieu of such notice)."

Kindly help or guide me. Thank you!

Thank you so much for your response! If we file a complaint against the employer via the Labour office through online grievances, how long does it take to get the final verdict? Is there any obligation from the Labour office end to finish the case within the stipulated time, or does it take several months for this? Or is it better to go ahead with the local labor lawyer? Kindly guide me on how to proceed with legal actions?

I refer to the discussion at #21 and #23 above.

My say on this is as follows:

1. The employee did not work from home.

2. The employee did not attend a single meeting (I suppose the meetings were conducted on an online platform).

3. The employee did not attend his duty after the office reopened (I suppose the office reopening followed government guidelines and standard operating procedures. I assume the employee was informed accordingly and was offered the opportunity to resume duty under these circumstances).

In the above circumstances, the employee, whether in a managerial or non-managerial position, is liable for disciplinary action. The employee should be given the opportunity to be heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Before termination, the disciplinary procedure must be completed.

Terminating the employee without following the disciplinary procedure may lead to an improper, unjust, and illegal termination.

Terminating an employee during a lockdown goes against the directives of the Ministry of Home Affairs, which are mandatory.

If the termination of the employee is deemed improper, unjust, and illegal, the employee can defend his decision not to respond to company emails and can return the laptop, etc.

It appears that the company may need to hire a good advocate.

Regards,

Akhil Bhartiya

Clarification on Supreme Court Orders and MHA Directives

I refer to the discussion at #25 by Nathrao. There is no such order by the Honorable Supreme Court quashing the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) order mandating payment during the lockdown period. This is totally misleading everyone. However, it is a fact that all the earlier orders by the MHA have ceased from 18/05/2020.

State of Maharashtra's Stance

But in the State of Maharashtra, through its order dated 19.05.2020, it is stated that all its earlier orders shall be aligned with this order and shall remain in force up to 31.05.2020. This means that the clause mandating payment of wages in the State of Maharashtra stands valid.

Debate on State vs. MHA Orders

This may be a debatable issue. I have my own view on this, which is as follows: The orders by the MHA (Government of India) issued by and in the capacity as Chairman NEC are in exercise of powers conferred under section 10(2)(1) of the DM Act 2005. All those orders are directives to Ministries/Departments of the Government of India, all States, UTs, and their authorities. Therefore, the State Governments' orders should be aligned with the orders by the MHA.

Since the fresh MHA order has removed the clause of mandating wages as stated above, no State Government can insist on the clause removed by the MHA. The Maharashtra Government order dated 19.05.2020 is not aligned with the order(s) by the MHA, in my opinion.

I hope the readers will understand the points I have made here.

Dear Seniors, I am working for a private limited company based in Delhi. It has been approximately one and a half years since I started working with this company, and I recently received an increment. However, the issue arose during the lockdown when the company only paid 30% of its employees, which is one-third of the total workforce. Upon approaching the manager to address this discrepancy and request a fair amount, I received the following email leading to immediate termination. Please see the email content below and provide advice on how to proceed.

The email states:

"As you are aware, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted businesses in our region. Due to this situation, we regret to inform you that your position as HR Manager will be temporarily stood down as it is not safe to continue your work while the coronavirus is spreading.

This stand down is effective immediately (May 29, 2020), and we anticipate it will remain in effect until the situation improves. According to the Fair Work Act, your stand down will be unpaid.

It is important to note that this stand down is temporary, and although unfortunate, we eagerly await your return when normal business operations resume. During this period, if you come across a better opportunity elsewhere, you are free to pursue it.

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter promptly and return any company property provided to you during your full-time employment."

I am seeking support and guidance on how to proceed in this situation. Your help is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, [Your Name]

This is happening with a lot of employees, including those in managerial positions. The explanations given by your employer are only a safe play. I don't understand why he has quoted the Fair Work Act! What is that? You are working in India. I have not heard of such an Act in India, though in Australia, an Act called the Fair Work Act is available.

Anyway, the order terminating you is not stigmatic, I think. Moreover, you, being a Manager, cannot take the matter to the Labour Dispute redressing machinery. Therefore, have a discussion and then settle it amicably.

Dear Mr. P. Radhakrishnan Nair,

This is in reference to your post at #37. The link provided by you is not authentic. What is authentic is the order by the court. There is no such order from the Honorable Supreme Court.

The link you shared was last updated on 18.05.2020. The case was scheduled for hearings on 15.05.2020 and then on 26.05.2020. It is likely to be heard again in the first week of June 2020.

Please find attached the orders dated 15.05.2020 and 26.05.2020 for your reference to support my statement.

Thank you.

Dear Madhu.T.K, this refers to your post #36 above. What I feel is that no employer can reduce the salary/wage during the lockdown or terminate the employment of any person. This is a breach of various orders and guidelines by the MHA, as well as orders and guidelines by various departments of the Union Government and almost all State Governments.

All those orders and guidelines are under the DM Act 2005, and the aggrieved person can approach various authorities for relief/justice irrespective of their cadre/nature of duties, including the Nodal officer at the level of the Ministry to deal with "Employee Grievances with respect to COVID-19, Govt. of India," as I feel.

Regards, Akhil Bhartiya

Thank you for providing the SC order on Ficus Pax P Ltd.

The case referred to in my previous discussion, no. 37, is different. If you follow the link, you may find some relevant information. As mentioned in my earlier post, I am still awaiting the SC judgment.

In this context, the petitioner is M/s Nagreeka Exports (P) Ltd. from Mumbai. The petition was filed in the SC on 14/4/2020. Following the petitioner's plea, the SC quashed the MHA order. This information was reported in the newspaper.

Mr. Akhil, we all know that there is an order from the MHA directing employers not to reduce salaries or terminate workers. However, didn't you see the revised notification effective from 18th May? In that notification, this particular direction has been removed. It was removed upon finding that the government cannot mandate private employers to pay salaries. Now, the decision on whether salaries should be paid to employees during the lockdown period, whether they should continue retaining manpower without assigning any work, or terminate them should be taken only by the employer and not by the government.

It will not be proper to have much interaction as a member like me who has not even completed a week on this platform. But to bring clarity to the subject I previously interacted with, I have decided to share what I know.

Writ Petitions Against MHA Order

There are as many as 29 Writ Petitions (WPs) against the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) order dated 29.03.2020, which quashes the paragraph stating: "All employers, whether in the industry or in shops and commercial establishments, shall make payment of wages to their workers at their workplaces on the due date, without any deduction, for the period their establishments are closed during the lockdown."

Initially, there were 2 WPs before the Honorable Supreme Court on 27.04.2020, and 5 more on 01.05.2020. Currently, there are 29 WPs before the Honorable SC.

All the WPs have been listed and tagged together for hearing by the Honorable SC, which commenced hearings after 01.05.2020 on 15.05.2020 and 26.05.2020.

As of now, all the WPs are listed in the cause list dated 04.06.2020.

Dear friend Akhil Bhartiya, there are two points raised in your query.

MHA Order

It seems you have not perused the MHA order promulgated in May 2020, wherein it clearly stated that the condition (as quoted by you) stipulated in its earlier order (issued in March 2020) stands cancelled with effect from 18th May 2020.

WPs

Although the statistics given by you may be correct, the petition filed by Nagreeka Exports, Mumbai, will not be heard on 4/6 (as per the date given by you) and it will be listed for a hearing only in the first week of July 2020. This is the latest update I have received.

Thank you for your interaction.

MHA Order Update

Regarding the MHA order, please refer to my post at #33, in which I mentioned that earlier orders by the MHA have ceased from 18/05/2020.

Hearing of Writ Petitions (WPs)

Concerning the WPs, my understanding is that since all the WPs are listed and tagged together for hearing by the Honorable SC, the hearing in Nagreeka Exports will also occur on 04.06.2020. The Union of India is yet to file a counter affidavit on its behalf.

You may observe that there are no interim orders in every WP, but still, all the matters are heard together. Additionally, the wording in various orders differs. "No coercive action" is explicitly stated in only two orders, yet we have implemented it in every WP.

I firmly believe that although the names of Nagreeka Exports and some other petitioners are not on the cause list for 04.06.2020, they will all be considered for the hearing on that date. Let us await tomorrow, i.e., 04.06.2020.

Sharing one's knowledge by posting replies to someone who has several years of experience or a lot of friends is not a wrong thing. You can do it. We welcome it.

Regarding the MHA order

I had expressed my feelings much earlier. During the initial lockdown period, when I was invited to present a session on the liability of employers to pay salaries to employees during the lockdown period, I had expressed the same concern. I have codified the discussion, and a write-up is available on the blog. Please follow the link [Madhu T K: Liability of employers to pay salary during COVID 19 lockdown period](http://madhu-t-k.blogspot.com/2020/04/liability-of-employers-to-pay-salary.html).

The Supreme Court has not considered the objective of the MHA order. Now, when the interim verdict came directing the departments not to take action against employers who did not pay wages, those who were willing to pay abstained from paying it. The result is that if you need to have another complete lockdown, nobody will follow it.

Respected Seniors,

In not-for-profit sector organizations, whose income is primarily through donations and only a negligible part through their services, is it possible to reduce staff salaries by say, 10% of the gross for a few months? What are the legal implications?

Supreme Court Interim Order on Wage Payment

Today, i.e., Thursday, 04.06.2020, the Supreme Court passed an interim order stating that no coercive action should be taken against employers for failing to comply with the March 29 order of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for full payment of wages. The Court reserved orders for June 12 on the petitions challenging the MHA notification and restrained coercive action until then. Below is the text copy-paste I received for your quick reference: "No coercive action will be taken against any employers pursuant to the March 29 MHA order. Therefore, the interim order will continue until June 12. All parties are given liberty to file written submissions within three days," ordered a bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, S K Kaul, and M R Shah.

MHA Notification to Prevent Human Suffering

The direction issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs was intended to prevent human suffering amid the national lockdown, said Attorney General KK Venugopal. "The notification is for preventing human suffering," said the AG in response to a batch of petitions challenging the order issued on March 29, invoking the powers under the Disaster Management Act. "People were migrating in crores; they wanted the industries to continue. The notification was to keep the workers put; they would only stay put if they are paid," the AG explained.

The AG also submitted that the National Executive Committee under the Disaster Management Act can issue the notification, as the Act gives it wide powers to "lay down guidelines of any kind" to deal with disasters.

Bench Expresses Reservations

The bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, S K Kaul, and M R Shah raised concerns regarding the viability of the direction to pay 100% wages when industries and establishments were forced to shut down. "We are concerned with the March 29 notification. It asks for 100 percent payment and prosecution. We have reservations over this. Some discussion should be held to work out some solutions for this period," Justice S K Kaul observed.

The bench also noted that the Government invoked the Disaster Management Act instead of the Industrial Disputes Act and insisted that employers should pay 100% wages. "The question is, do you have the power to get them to pay 100 percent and, on their failure to do so, prosecute them... There is a concern that workmen should not be left without pay, but the industry may not have the money to pay," Justice Kaul remarked.

The bench said that there have to be negotiations with the industry, and the government should play the role of a facilitator. "We can find out via media. Give us a practical solution," the bench told the AG.

The AG insisted that the Court should consider the background of the humanitarian situation due to which the order was issued. "The most appropriate thing would be to consider the humanitarian situation due to which this order was issued," he said. The bench also invited the AG's attention to the prayers of some petitioners seeking to direct the Government to subsidize wages. The AG replied that the Government has already decided to infuse Rs. 20,000 crores into the MSME sector.

The bench stressed that there should be negotiations with the employers. "Some negotiations have to happen between employers and workmen to iron out what to be done for the salary for these 54 days," Justice Bhushan observed. Justice S K Kaul added, "On one hand, you say you're trying to put money in the pocket of the worker, so now some negotiation is required for a solution."

Financial Incapacity Not a Ground to Challenge the Order: MHA Affidavit

Earlier, the MHA filed a counter-affidavit in the cases, defending the March 29 notification. Financial incapacity cannot be a reason to challenge the notification, the MHA said. "Financial incapacity is a legally untenable ground to challenge a direction issued by a competent authority in the exercise of its statutory power," stated the MHA's counter-affidavit.

The MHA explained that directions were a temporary measure to "mitigate the financial hardship of the employees and workers, especially contractual and casual during the lockdown period." The MHA also informed the Court that the March 29 notification has ceased to have effect from May 18.

Previous Developments

On May 15, the SC passed an interim order in the petitions filed by Hand Tools Manufacturers Association and Jute Mills Association that no coercive action should be taken against the petitioners for non-compliance with the MHA direction. On May 26, the SC issued extended interim orders passed in the cases of Hand Tools Manufacturers Association and Jute Mills Association.

The petitions challenged the order issued by the Home Secretary on March 29, invoking powers under Section 10(2)(l) of the Disaster Management Act 2005, which directed as follows: "All the employees, be it in the Industry or in the shops and commercial establishments, shall make payment of wages of their workers, at their workplaces, on the due date, without any deduction, for the period their establishments are under closure during the lockdown."

The MHA direction was challenged as unreasonable and arbitrary and as violative of the fundamental right to trade and business of the employers. Since operations are completely shut down during the lockdown, it is impossible for the employers to continue to bear the burden of the full salary of employees, the petitioners submitted. The petitioner(s) have also raised the argument that the impugned direction was beyond the scope of powers conferred under the Disaster Management Act. "Interpreting Section 10(2)(l) of the Disaster Management Act 2005 as conferring power on the Central Government to direct Private Establishment to make full payment of wages to the employees during the lockdown period is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India," said one of the pleas.

I am an abiding Indian citizen who always believes in the constitution and also a Jewellery Sales Executive of a reputed Kolkata-based company. I am really sorry to say that from April to date, my salary given on a gross amount by the employer is as follows: Apr - 50 percent, May - 75 percent, June - 80 percent, July - 60 percent, Aug - 65 percent, respectively. And strangely, with no intimation of any circular at all.

As I am not aware of any government rules or regulations regarding payment to be given to employees in a whimsical manner, and no informative way. Please help me. Please provide such directives if any, or help me on how to handle such deformities by a well-known jewellery brand.

Regards.

Ficus Pax Private Limited vs. Union of India and Ors.

FICUS PAX PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., the lead case in the Supreme Court on the issue of Payment of Wages for the Lockdown period, is scheduled to be listed on 13-10-2020.