LVMCC124

[1ST LAWSCHOLE VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020]

Before

[THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGOPOL]

[PETITION / APPLICATION / CASE] NUMBER _______ / 2020

FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF GEORGOPOL

IN THE CASE CONCERNING [SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE]

AND

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

[EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION [PETITIONER]

OF PPL ]

versus

[UNION OF INDIA] [RESPONDENT]

I|Page Memorial for Petitioner

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

Table of Contents......................................................................................................................II

INdex of Authorities................................................................................................................III

Statement of Jurisdiction...........................................................................................................V

Statement of Facts....................................................................................................................VI

Summary of Arguments............................................................................................................X

Arguments Advanced.................................................................................................................1

1. WHETHER THE DEMAND IN INCREMENT OF SALARIES JUSIFIED BY THE

EMPLOYEES IN TIMES OF COVID-19?.......................................................................1

2. WHETHER THE STRIKE OF ONE WEEK BY THE EMPLOYEES LEGAL IN

THE INSTANT CASE?.....................................................................................................3

3. WHETHER THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY PRINCETON PRIVATE LIMITED

VIOLATIVE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF
GEORGPOL?.....................................................................................................................5

4. WHETHER THE ADVISORY ISSUED UPON THE PRIVATE EMPLOYERS NOT

TO DEDUCT THE SALARIES OF THEIR EMPLOYEES AND FUTHER ADVISING
THEM NOT TO TERMINATE THEIR EMPLOYMENT DURING THE LOCKDOWN
PERIOD ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT HAS
ANY LEGAL APPLICABILITY?....................................................................................7

Prayer for Relief.........................................................................................................................9

II | P a g e Memorial for Petitioner

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUES

 The Constitution of India, 1949.

 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

 Disaster Management Act, 2005.

 Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.

BOOKS

 DR. J.N. PANDEY; CONSTITUIONAL LAW OF INDIA; FIFTY FIFTH

EDITION;2018; CENTRAL LAW AGENCY

 P.M BAKSHI, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA; 12TH EDITION, 2014; UNIVERSAL

LAW PUBLISHING

LEGAL DATABASE

 www.scconline.in

 www.indiankanoon.com

 www.legalcrystal.com

DICTIONARIES/ LAW LEXICON REFERRED

 P. RAMANATHA AIYAR, The Law Lexicon, 2nd Ed., 2008.

 JUSTICE T.P. MUKHERJEE, K.K. SINGH, The Law Lexicon, Central Law
Agency, 4th Ed., 1989.
 WILLIAM G. BURTON, Legal Thesaurus, Macmillian Publishing Company,
Deluxe Ed.
 BRYAN A. GARNER, Black’s Law Dictionary, Thomson West, 8th Ed., 1999.

CASES REFFERED

III | P a g e Memorial for Petitioner

  NAGREEKA EXPORTS LIMITED V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS, W.P. (C) NO.
471/2020 X
 ALL INDIA BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V. I. T., 1962 AIR 171, 1962
SCR (3) 269

IV | P a g e Memorial for Petitioner

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE AT GEORGOPOL EXERCISES

JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND ADJUDICATE OVER THE MATTER UNDER
ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF GEORGOPOL, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

THE PETITIONER HUMBLY SUBMITS TO JURISDICTION OF THE HON’BLE

COURT WHICH HAS BEEN INVOKED BY THE RESPONDENT. HOWEVER, THE
PETITIONER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE SAME. THE
PROVISION UNDER WHICH THE RESPONDENT HAS APPROACHED THE
HONORABLE COURT IS READ HEREIN UNDER AS:

Article 32 in the Constitution of Georgopol 19501

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part:-

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 ).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution.

1
India Const. art.

V|Page Memorial for Petitioner

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Princeton Private Limited is a company situated in Mellor City, in Bumpkin, a State

of Georgopol. PPL is a renowned company and operates in the field of Fabric
Manufacturing making it a fourth runner in the business of manufacturing with huge
varieties of fabrics and garments.
2. PPL is registered under the Statutes of Georgopol and since the inception of its
business in the year of 1998; the company has grown the business by leaps and
bounds. Further, it receives multi-million dollar contracts from the government as
well as from some of the most established individuals and firms across the globe. 
3.  The company, PPL is known for its professionalism, commitment and as one of the
best human resource managements across the globe.  
4. It is to be noted that the CEO of PPL in the year 2015 stated that the employees’
satisfaction “always” comes first to the company. 
5. In the year 2020, during the first quarter, the world experienced the first pandemic of
the 21st century SARS- CoV-2 (Covid-19) pandemic. 
6. On 11th March 2020, The World Health Organization (WHO) declared global
pandemic as the effect of the corona virus outbreak so devastating at a global scale. 
7. On 14th March 2020, the Government of Georgopol declared COVID-19 as a
“notified disaster”, and due to unprecedented infection rate, unknown symptoms with
lack of vaccination, the government had no option but to take unheard measures and
thus declared a complete lockdown of almost all services and operations so as to curl
down the effect of the said virus, thus, invoking a 123 year old Legislation, i.e.
Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.  
8. On 20th March 2020, in the view of the prevailing lockdown imposed by the Central
and the State Government, the Ministry of Labour and Employment issued an
advisory appealing to the entire employer’s association not to terminate the
employment of their employees or cut the wages of its workers in the view of the
lockdown. The advisory further stated that all the employers of public/private
establishments are advised to extend their cooperation by not terminating the
employment of their employees, particularly casual or contractual workers and not to
reduce their wages.

VI | P a g e Memorial for Petitioner

 9. Meanwhile, due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the economic growth of
Georgopol has taken a significant hit.
10. Almost all of the businesses have suffered unprecedented loss in view of the COVID-
19 pandemic and so has PPL. PPL has also incurred humongous losses owing to the
restrictions imposed by the Government.
11. On April 20, 2020, the Association of Employees of PPL decided to get an upgrade in
their working conditions and demanded a hike in salaries.
12. Just like PPL has incurred losses, the employees contended that the pandemic has
significantly affected their financial standing and thus, they demanded a hike in
salaries as the company used to give a hike to employees during this time of the year. 
13. Demanding the same, the employees requested the management to do the needful and
to cooperate with their genuine needs, and stated that else it will be difficult for them
to survive during the pandemic
14. The management ensured that the requests would be heard and a decision would be
made and further that the employees should not be bothered by the same. Upon the
assurance provided by the management, the employees diligently continued their
assignments while working from home.
15. But unfortunately, despite the said assurance, no decision was made by the company
for approving or declining the demands of the employees.
16. The employees of PPL got agitated due to the callous and the indecisive attitude of
the management and called for a strike.
17. Because of such an action taken by employees, the management of PPL gave further
assurances and declared that the process of declaring increment in the wages of the
employees was being worked upon by them. 
18. From May 10 to May 17 2020, the employees of PPL decided to proceed with the one
week strike since the employees of PPL have waited enough and had no trust in PPL’s
empty promises.
19. To which the management of PPL highlighted that the increment in wages is not an
immediate and urgent need of the employees and further states that agitating strike
violates the terms of their service agreement as the same is against the provisions of
the Industrial Dispute, Act 19472.

2
Industrial Disputes Act, No. 14 of 1947, INDIA CODE.

VII | P a g e Memorial for Petitioner

 20. PPL stated that the company is constrained to deduct one week’s salary of those
employees who agitated the strike despite employee’s welfare and satisfaction being
the prime motto of the company.
21. In the meanwhile, the nationwide lockdown was extended and so have been the
powers of the government under the Epidemic Disease Act, 1897 3 and the Disaster
Management Act, 20054. 
22. The government with regards to the above provision issued advisory and notification
against companies terminating the services of their employees or deducting their
wages during the lockdown.
23. On 29th March 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs ordered that during the lockdown
period, employers should pay wages to all workers without any deductions and any
violation of this order will go against the spirit of Section 7 of the Payment of Wages
Act, 19365, including the COVID- 19 related circular that prohibit such reductions. 
24. Later, PPL contended that the orders issued under DMA are ultra vires and stated that
the epidemic has affected both the employer and employee and hence they should be
treated equally, without any discrimination.
25. They further stated that they are currently unable to provide increment to the
employees as no income has been generated during the lockdown owing to necessary
restrictions imposed by the Government.  
26. The employees stated that in terms of financial impact, the employees are worst
affected as their survival is totally dependent on their wages and thus pointed out that
the doctrine of reasonable classification would come into play in this situation and so
the employees have to be treated as a separate class from employers and both cannot
be treated as being equally affected by pandemic.
27. The employees further contended that though the DMA Act does not specifically
confer or vest any power with the Central or the State Government /Authorities
appointed under the Act to direct the payment of wages/salaries by private
establishments, this direction is clearly covered by various provisions of the Act.

3
Epidemic Disease Act, No. 3 of 1897, INDIA CODE.
4
Disaster Management Act, No. 53 of 2005, INDIA CODE.
5
The Payment of Wages Act, No. 4 of 1936, INDIA CODE.

VIII | P a g e Memorial for Petitioner

 28. The employees further stated that the Orders are issued pursuant to Section 35 (l) and
38 (l) of the DMA6 which provide the Central and State Government to take ‘such
other matters as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing effective
implementation of the provisions of this DMA’, as also sections 10(1); 10(2)(d) &
10(2)(q) and the action taken by Princeton Private Limited was in violation of their
fundamental rights as provided under the Constitution of Georgopol.
29. On June 25, 2020, owing to such plight, the Employees Association of PPL filed a
Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Georgopol.
30. On July 20, 2020 the matter is reserved for hearing on Jurisdiction and final
arguments.

6
Disaster Management Act, supra note 4, § 35(1), 38(1).

IX | P a g e Memorial for Petitioner

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I
WHETHER THE DEMAND IN INCREMENT OF SALARIES JUSIFIED BY THE
EMPLOYEES IN TIMES OF COVID-19?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the demand in increment of salaries is
justified by the employees in times of COVID-19 as in the instant case, it is seen that the
employees got their daily/casual wages but their demand for increment in salary wasn’t met
by PPL. Now if we see, the employees of PPL used to get a hike during the same period
every year and hence their demand was absolutely justified as just like PPL incurred losses
those worker/employee’s only source of income was their salary from the same company and
in times of Covid-19 they had to take extra precautions to keep themselves and the society
safe from the deadly virus. If we look at the statement of facts it is clear that PPL has been in
business for quite a long time and has been doing really well, hence, some losses won’t make
the company go bankrupt.

ISSUE II.
WHETHER THE STRIKE OF ONE WEEK BY THE EMPLOYEES LEGAL IN THE
INSTANT CASE?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the strike of one week by the employees
is legal in the instant case as it can be noted the employees of PPL are solely dependent on
their salaries for survival and if their salaries were deducted by PPL on account of strike in
such crucial times of pandemic then it may lead them to take drastic steps. Thus, this shows
that there have been previous instances of strikes by employees and their demands have been
met without any such immoral measures of salary deduction.

ISSUE III.
WHETHER THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY PRINCETON PRIVATE LIMITED
VIOLATIVE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF
GEORGOPOL?

MEMORIAL for PETITIONER PAGE |X

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the actions taken by PPL are violative of
the fundamental rights under the Constitution of Georgopol as the directions are neither
arbitrary nor capricious. The ground of financial hardship, incapacity which has been pleaded
by the Respondent is legally untenable ground to challenge the direction issued by competent
authority in exercise of statutory power. The Union of India issued the above direction as a
temporary measure to mitigate the financial hardship of the employees and workers
especially contractual and casual workers during the lockdown period. The measure was
proactively taken by the government to prevent perpetration of financial crisis within the
lower strata of the society, laborers and employees. Directions 7 issued by the Government of
India where an economic and welfare measure as benevolence in the object sought to be
achieved.
ISSUE IV.
WHETHER THE ADVISORY ISSUED UPON THE PRIVATE EMPLOYERS NOT
TO DEDUCT THE SALARIES OF THEIR EMPLOYEES AND FUTHER ADVISING
THEM NOT TO TERMINATE THEIR EMPLOYMENT DURING THE
LOCKDOWN PERIOD ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND
EMPLOYMENT HAS ANY LEGAL APPLICABILITY?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the advisory upon the PPL not to deduct
the salaries of their employees and further advising them not to terminate their employment
during the lockdown period issued by the ministry of Labour and Employment has legal
applicability as the directions issued by the impugned order are necessary measures to
safeguard the rights of employees in the face of severe social and economic hardships caused
by the COVID-19 lockdown. If employees are terminated or wages are reduced it would
further deepen the crisis and weaken the financial condition of the employee and also hamper
their morale to combat their fight with the epidemic.

7
Clause (iii) of the MHA Order No. 40-3/2020-DM-I-(A)

MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P A G E | XI

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

CONTENTION I

1. WHETHER THE DEMAND IN INCREMENT OF SALARIES JUSIFIED BY

THE EMPLOYEES IN TIMES OF COVID-19?

The Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner most humbly and respectfully submits that:-

Much ado surrounds the issue of employers’ obligation to pay wages during the COVID-19
lockdown period. An overwhelming majority of the industries, shops and establishments have
taken a holistic view and have hence been empathetic to the plight of their workforce.

However, ill-advisedly, a section of owners seem to be summarily discarding workers’ claim

for wages. Forceful arguments are being advanced by lawyers and labour experts in favour of
the capital to say the various orders and notifications issued by the Central government
invoking the provisions of the National Disaster Management Authority, (NDMA) are
without jurisdiction and hence cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny.

On this foundational premise, it is argued that payment of wages during the lockdown period
is merely a moral obligation and not a statutory mandate. The popular misconception is that
the Union Home Secretary has passed the orders and advisories for lockdown and associated
guidelines. A closer examination would reveal that many of them are not mere executive
fiats, but statutory orders passed on behalf of the National Authority (NA) and National
Executive Committee (NEC) constituted under the NDMA.

Amid this unprecedented calamity, the payment of wages cannot be viewed from the narrow
compass of employment law. Payment of wages during the lockdown is nothing but a

Page 1

Memorial for Petitioner

translation of the constitutional mandate into action. Payment of wages is nothing but
protecting life.

As it was held in the case of, Nagreeka Exports Limited V. Union of India & Ors 8, “that in
fact during the period of the lockdown, workers are in want of increased wages and
compensation in light of the hike in prices of food and essentials. Additionally, the present
situation also fastens increased expenses on workers for extra sanitation necessities and
hygiene products such as soaps, masks, gloves etc. for adequate personal protection and that
despite the closure of most functions, all expenses of the workers remain fixed and
unchanged, which include school fees, rent, loan repayments, electricity, food, etc. In fact,
some of these costs have also increased as the costs of the basic essentials have also
increased. That most of the workers of the unions represented by the Applicants / Interveners
are poor with negligible to no savings. Additionally, many of them are indebted to money
lenders”.

Thus, in the instant case, it is seen that the employees got their daily/casual wages but their
demand for increment in salary wasn’t met by PPL. Now if we see, the employees of PPL
used to get a hike during the same period every year and hence their demand was absolutely
justified as just like PPL incurred losses those worker/employees only source of income was
their salary from the same company and in times of Covid-19 they had to take extra
precautions to keep themselves and the society safe from the deadly virus. If we look at the
statement of facts it is clear that PPL has been in business for quite a long time and has been
doing really well, hence, some losses won’t make the company go bankrupt.

Further, the counsel on behalf of the petitioner would like to submit that workers have neither
abandoned nor absented themselves from work. They are obeying the statutory directions for
which they must not be penalized.

8
Nagreeka Exports Limited V. Union of India & Ors, (2020) WP (C) 471 (India)

Page 2

Memorial for Petitioner

Further, well-known companies like Asian Paints, Bharat Pe, Capgemini and Tesco have
given a hike to all its employees, where the CEO and MD of Asian Paints, Amit Syngle
stated that “We have to set an example of true leadership and an organisation that takes care
of all its stakeholders. I have been updating the board regularly on all such initiatives and
have received their approval for these actions. I see this as a big opportunity to step in and
interact with every single employee and assuage their concerns in an uncertain marketplace.
We are not in the hire and fire business and as a mature brand have reassured employees
that we all are all together in this 9”. In the instant case, if we see the fact, PPL also stated
that they are a world-renowned company and that the employee's satisfaction “always” comes
first to the company. Yet, they failed to take care of the welfare of their employees, in times
of a pandemic, when they needed it the most.

CONTENTION II

2. WHETHER THE STRIKE OF ONE WEEK BY THE EMPLOYEES LEGAL IN

THE INSTANT CASE?

My Lordship, Strike under 2 (q) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194710, reads as “a cessation
of work by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in combination, or a concerted
refusal, or a refusal, under a common understanding of any number of persons who are or
have been so employed to continue to work or to accept employment”.

No doubt strike is the ultimate weapon in the hands of worker and labour laws also support
strikes if it does in accordance with, if we go through the history of strikes and analyze, we
find that the core reason ultimately is non-payment of wages to workers by their employer,
followed by irregular payment of wages and then less payment of the wages.

9
Kala Vijayraghavan & Rajesh Mascarenhas, Asian Paints raises staff salaries to boost morale, ET (May 15,
2020), https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/asian-paints-raises-staff-salaries-
to-boost-morale/articleshow/75746239.cms
10
Industrial Disputes Act, supra note 2, § 2.

Page 3

Memorial for Petitioner

In the case of, All India Bank Employees Association v. I. T 11., Supreme Court held that
“the right to strike or right to declare lockout may be controlled or restricted by appropriate
industrial legislation and the validity of such legislation would have to be tested not
regarding the criteria laid down in clause (4) of Article 19 12 but by totally different
considerations.”

If we take very recent incidents of strikes in various industries, non-payment of the wages
were obvious reasons for resorting strikes by workers, real examples are as follows:-

In Chennai, in March, 2012, Nurses employed at different hospitals did strike for almost 7
days against hospital managements for their demands. Hundreds of nurses, several of them
junior staff, have struck work across major private hospitals in the city – Apollo, Fortis Malar
and Madras Medical Mission – demanding a hike in basic salary to Rs 15,000, besides annual
increments and leave benefits and the demands for which were met.13

Again, in January 2014, Kingfisher employees went on hunger strike due to non-payment of
salary for 7 months. Kingfisher Airlines employees were on strike for several days for not
paying salary by company for almost a period of seven months, strike took many turns and
aggregated subsequently employees agitations came on to roads as demonstrations against
non-payment of salaries. At worst, wife of an employee of this airlines had committed suicide
due to unbearable financial crisis caused due non-payment of wages for months to her
husband.14

11
All India Bank Employees Association v. I. T, (1962) AIR 171, 1962 SCR (3) 269 (India)
12
INDIA CONST. supra note 1; art. 19, cl. 2.
13
Arun Janardhanan, Private hospital nurses rise in protest, TOI (March 4, 2012).
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Private-hospital-nurses-rise-in-
protest/articleshow/12129359.cms

14
PTI, Kingfisher employees plan hunger strike over salary due, ET (Sept 15, 2013).
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/transportation/airlines-/-aviation/kingfisher-employees-plan-
hunger-strike-over-salary-dues/articleshow/22596715.cms?from=mdr

Page 4

Memorial for Petitioner

Thus, it can be noted that in the instant case, the employees of PPL are solely dependent on
their salaries for survival and if their salaries were deducted by PPL on account of strike in
such crucial times of pandemic then it may lead them to take drastic steps. While in
September 2016, tens of millions of Indian workers of the public sector had gone on strike
demanding higher wages. Banks, power stations were kept shut and public transportation
systems froze in some of the states. Later the government considered their demands and
increased the wages. It was the world’s largest-ever strike.

Thus, this shows that there have been previous instances of strikes by employees and their
demands have been met without any such immoral measures of salary deduction.

CONTENTION III

3. WHETHER THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY PRINCETON PRIVATE LIMITED

VIOLATIVE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF
GEORGPOL?

The Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner most humbly and respectfully submits that:-

That the direction dated 29.03.2020 was issued in public interest by a Competent Authority.
The directions are neither arbitrary nor capricious. The ground of financial hardship,
incapacity which has been pleaded by the Respondent is legally untenable ground to
challenge the direction issued by competent authority in exercise of statutory power. The
Union of India issued the above direction as a temporary measure to mitigate the financial
hardship of the employees and workers especially contractual and casual workers during the
lockdown period. The measure was proactively taken by the government to prevent
perpetration of financial crisis within the lower strata of the society, labourers and employees.
Directions issued by the Government of India where an economic and welfare measure as
benevolence in the object sought to be achieved.

Page 5

Memorial for Petitioner

It is further stated that right to wages is a pre- existing right which flows inter alia from the
contract of employment as well as broader constitutional and statutory scheme flowing from
Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution 15 and encompassing Payment of wages Act, 1936 16,
Minimum Wages Act, 194817, The Contract labour (Regulation and abolition) Act, 1970 18 and
the Industrial Disputes Act, 194719. Nationwide lockdown and resultant closure of the
workplace directly affected the sustenance and livelihood of members of the Employees
Union. All measures taken by the Government of India are within its legislative competence.

It is further held that no Industry or establishment can survive without employees/labourers

and thus, in the instant case, the decision of PPL to deduct salary of those employees who
agitated the strike would be unfair since they had been and would be expected to work in the
near future and their only means of income is the salary from PPL.

A notable point from the WHO’s review of the response to the swine flu pandemic is that as
it “caused illness that did not require hospitalization in the vast majority of cases” and
“spread to several countries within days, the possibility of rapid containment, a tenet of
planning in WHO’s multi-stage response, was never really feasible”.

This attitude is in marked contrast to the unprecedented lockdowns and economic shutdown
we have seen across the globe to contain COVID-19.

A criticism of the lockdown approach to stopping the spread of the new coronavirus is that it
exacerbates privilege and wealth. People living on hourly or daily wages for jobs, especially
manual labour, that can’t be done online and remotely suffer an immediate drop in their
income, and the most vulnerable won’t have savings to fall back on. In low- and middle-
income countries, the lockdown has shown clearly the number of people without secure

15
INDIA CONST. supra note 1; art. 14, 21.
16
The Payment of Wages Act, supra note 5.
17
Minimum Wages Act, No. 11 of 1948, INDIA CODE.
18
The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, No. 37 of 1970, INDIA CODE.
19
Industrial Disputes Act, supra note 2.

Page 6

Memorial for Petitioner

housing, water and sanitation, and reliable employment.

CONTENTION IV

4. WHETHER THE ADVISORY ISSUED UPON THE PRIVATE EMPLOYERS NOT

TO DEDUCT THE SALARIES OF THEIR EMPLOYEES AND FUTHER ADVISING
THEM NOT TO TERMINATE THEIR EMPLOYMENT DURING THE
LOCKDOWN PERIOD ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND
EMPLOYMENT HAS ANY LEGAL APPLICABILITY?

The Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner most humbly and respectfully submits that-

The directions issued by the impugned order are necessary measures to safeguard the rights
of employees in the face of severe social and economic hardships caused by the COVID-19
lockdown. If employees are terminated or wages are reduced it would further deepen the
crisis and weaken the financial condition of the employee and also hamper their morale to
combat their fight with the epidemic.

That the factum of workers not being able to work during the lockdown is undisputed. It is
also undisputed that the workers have been compelled to stay away from their workplaces.
The lockdown and its consequence have affected everyone in the country and have affected
the poor and the marginal the most. The employers are mostly profit driven and most of them
have been showing significant profits made by them in the preceding period and will be able
to recover their losses. It is wholly misconceived to represent the woes of private
establishments to be on a worse footing as compared to workers, most of whom are poor with
negligible to no savings with many of them being indebted to money lenders. Loss of wages
to them will lead to complete loss of their livelihoods.

Further, it is held that the workers, even though not given work, are expected to abide with all
other terms of the contract such as not taking employment elsewhere, not disclosing trade
secrets to rivals, etc. In such a situation it is clear that the contract of service is valid and
subsisting during the lockdown and workers are entitled to wages under such a contract and
that there can be no change of service conditions of the workers without following proper

Page 7

Memorial for Petitioner

procedure under the law and that an arbitrary pay cut would be illegal.

Similarly, it was held in that case, Nagreeka Exports Limited V. Union of India & Ors, 20
“that the contract is that the worker will get his wages as long as he is employed and is
ready to work. It cannot be read into the contract that he will not be entitled to wages if the
employer is unable to provide him with work. The establishments which are shut are so shut
because they are prohibited from working during the lockdown. In those establishments
where they are permitted to work, the workers are attending work as per the permissions
given. The workers, even though not given work are expected to abide with all other terms of
the contract such as not taking employment elsewhere, not disclosing trade secrets to rivals,
etc. In such a situation it is clear that the contract of service is valid and subsisting during
the lockdown and workers are entitled to wages under such a contract”.

Thus, the Disaster Management Act, 200521, is a self- contained code and no reliance can be
placed on any other law. Further by virtue of Section 72 of Disaster Management Act, 2005,
all other enactments are overridden. It is further submitted that the order impugned seeks to
reinforce the pre-existing right of the worker to get their wages without any reduction.

That in any case, under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 there can be no reduction in wages
without following proper procedure of law. Thus, it is submitted that Labour legislation is
devised for the business as usual scenarios, whereas NDMA and EDA are special laws which
override all generic legislation including the labour laws. The principle expressed in the
maxims “Generalia specialibus non derogant and Generalibus specialia” - meaning
“special law overrides general law”, is a well-settled legal principle across all jurisdictions
including India. Moreover, the NDMA per Section 72 has an overriding effect over all other
laws.

20
Nagreeka Exports Limited V. Union of India & Ors, supra note 8.
21
Disaster Management Act, supra note 4.

Page 8

Memorial for Petitioner

 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, it is prayed
that this Hon’ble Supreme Court may be pleased hold:

1. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) to:-

a) Direct the employers of PPL to pay the association of employees its increment in salaries.

b) Pass appropriate direction to the respondent to strike a balance between the interest of
employees and employers in a manner that neither is unduly prejudiced.

c) Direct the employers to not deduct the salaries of the employees who participated in the
said strike.

And any other relief that the honorable Court may be pleased to grant in the interests
of

Justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is humbly submitted.

Filed on: __/__/2020 S/d-

(Counsel for the Petitioner)

Page 9

Memorial for Petitioner