 Good afternoon, friends, and good afternoon, Mr. Esenmurti, a senior advocate from Karnataka High Court. As we all know that there is change in the labor laws by enacting of different codes, that is industrial relation code, code on social security. And once these are the changes, we thought that we should have some inner insights on the subject of these labor law changes. And therefore, we have started a three-part series and the first part, it will be all on Wednesdays, and the first part starts today on industrial relations code 2020. We are all thankful to Mr. Esenmurti, who has taken out time, we can understand that he's having quite busy schedule that even right now he's in his good dress and we are enamoured by the fact that he has given us the time to understand. Industrial relations code 2020 has brought in a lot of changes by bringing three basic acts, that is the trade union act, industrial employment, a standing orders act and the industrial disputes act into what can be said in a consolidated manner. And there are major changes from 100 workers, it goes to 300 workers, what is the effect of the standing orders? What is the term of fixed terms employment in respect of lockouts, right? And keeping in view of the fact that during these testing times, what could be the challenges to the SED Act and as to whether with those three acts, the industrial relation code is in terms of the understanding whether it will help the employers, especially the private employers, and secondly, as to whether it is pro employees, like in the previous codes when we were there, being a social legislation, it was always thought, especially in terms of retrenchment, layoff, etc. That it was more tilted towards the favour of the employees, workers and what are the new changes of fixed terms employment, etc. Without taking much time, I would request Mr. Esenmurti to give his insights on this new code and part one of this series which sir has agreed to share his knowledge about. Shall I start? Yes sir. Good afternoon Mr. Vikas and all those listening to me. It's been a great pleasure coming before you to address on this very, very vital subject. Not only the working class but the economy of the nation also. A great need was felt from a long time to bring some changes in labour laws. Now, an opportunity came across, I have a mixed feeling about this. While an attempt is made and to a great extent fairly, I would say correctly, to arrest the corruption in the entire system. Labour laws is one of those ten of corruption and which affected the industry very badly. Ten inspectors go, each inspector expects something, every form you need to pay something. It is not in one state but in every state and this put a lot of pressure on the industry. I do that at every stage, threat of prosecution. You file a form, I will prosecute you. There is a small injury, I will hold you negligent and prosecute you. Now, this kind of threat has been no good. In fact, I am quite surprised. The government has missed a golden opportunity to set right things. India is the only country in the world where you have a right to start the business but no right to close the business. You can start an industry but you are not allowed to close down the industry. What a shocking thing this is for anyone to hear. This has taken away the flexibility in employment completely. You employ 100 people or more, you can't lay off workmen when there is no work. You can't retrench workmen when there is a surplus. You can't close when the business becomes non-viable. And you threaten him of sending to jail. What sort of law this has been? Unfortunately, for me, today, I feel sad when I see the amendments have been brought out in Code 1. While I do not rule out some good things that have come, but the core thing is, the most important thing is, you talk of ease of doing business. What is the ease of doing business that you have achieved? The labour minister, union labour minister at every function says, we are now relaxing law, ease of doing business. It will become very easy and things and so on and so forth. Now, what is the code then? Let me start with the Industrial Disputes Act. Where in the Industrial Relations Code, this is found in the Code No. 1, the Third Enactment. Industry for that matter. Educational institution is industry, hospital is industry, Punjab is industry, lawyer's office is an industry, charter accountant's office is industry. This is what Justice Krishna here gives us. Alright, in 1978 to some extent, okay, we can even say, oh, Justice, you have to let that point of time. Today, we are there almost half a century later on and we still have the same law. 18th of August, 1984, the Government of India, the parliament, which had passed the bill to amend the definition of industry, was signed by the President. Then after three to four different benches of the Supreme Court, directed the government to give effect to it, but government did not do it. And what has it done now when all these cases are pending in courts? They have brought another order to the different definition of industry, leaving all the problems as they are. There's hardly any change. Even today's school, even under the code, school will continue to be an industry, college will continue to be an industry, barber shop will continue to be an industry, a Punjab Hall will continue to be an industry, a members club will continue to be an industry. What is all this? Again, you have missed the bus. Then what is it that you do? What did you do? All that you have done is one thing I can say which may be of some importance is with regard to the definition of wage has been amended. It has been made a little more clear for everyone to understand what is the definition of wage. Now, the only noticeable thing according to me is from 100, you took to 300. 100 was the threshold limit for less than 100, you can lay off, retrace your clothes depending upon the need without government permission. If you have 100 or more, you're required to take government permission for lay off, retracement and closure. Now that threshold limit has been raised to 300. In other words, industrial establishment employing less than 300 workmen will now be able to lay off, retrace your workmen without going to the government once the code comes into force. This is not sufficient. Let us take auto industry today for that matter. They are not able to sell half of what they will produce. They are not able to even, they have no orders to continue with manufacturing activity. They all employ thousands of people. What are they to do now? You don't give permission to lay off, you don't give permission to stay. You don't give permission to prove. What do you expect these people to do then? That's the situation. Now take for example, next one. With regard to strikes and lockouts. Sorry, you'll have to excuse me because of my throat issue. Strikes and lockouts. Earlier, the present law is there are two categories. One is the public utility services, other one is the private sector. Public utility services, declared public utility services, add certain sort of protection. Today they have incorporated such a miserable clause with regard to strikes and lockouts. Whether it is public sector, whether it is a public utility service or whether it is a private sector. To give, to lockout, you need to give 14 days notice. If you do not give 14 days notice to lockout, you could be prosecuted. Courts will say pay wages. Lockout will be called illegal. Tell me one thing, if in a factory of 300 people or 500 people, if 50 workmen go on threatening side, the officers but don't go on strike, they threaten the officers, they ill treat them, production is normal. They don't go on strike. What is to be done? You have to bear with 14 days notice. Take the other extreme case, there is certain element of sabotage inside but you are not able to identify. Production is normal. Workers are working but there is sabotage. Difficult. Intellectual crookedness amongst some of the trade union leaders and workforce. You have now reached a stage where they don't work with the heart and soul. At the same time, there is hardly anything you get to lockout. Let's presume, general manager is slapped on the shop floor, in the presence of 500 workmen on the shop floor. What is that relief you have? What is the remedy you have? You can't lockout because you have to give 14 days notice. This is something which is totally, which has never been contemplated or understood or they have not even foreseen such situations while doing this. Bureaucrats must involve, make a good committee constitutive of experts in the field from all over the country when they make such amendments. Not that a few bureaucrats sit in air conditioned cabins in New Delhi and make and say, okay, 46 laws are made into 4 courts. Now therefore, the amendment should always be positive forward looking. Now, what is that you can do if the workmen indulge in such activities that they force you to lockout, but they do not allow you to call their activity a strike. If they go on strike, no problem, you can lockout. In which case, question of 14 days notice does not arise. But trade union leaders are not fools. They will tell the workmen, plan it in such a way, production should be normal, productivity should be normal, but create a hell for officers inside. In fact, the whole objective is a mass misconduct. Suppose 100 people rush into a manager's cabin, you cannot charge it all the 100 or take discipline action against all the 100. What is the remedy? Lockout is the remedy. A mass misconduct leads to lockout. Now, if you cannot lockout, what is that you can do? Say for example, a factory having 5000 workmen. Today we have lifted lockout in one of the car manufacturing company in Karnataka. 6500 people work there. If the same vegetation had taken place after the code came, what do we do with them? Today we were able to suspend 39 people. Fine. Can I suspend 6500 people? So, these are the things that they should have thought, unfortunately are not there. And therefore, all that I can tell you about the Industrial Disputes Act is a very, very limited change that has come about. And that change has come about in the form of amendment to strike sale lockout, definition of industry being amended, Chapter 5B being made applicable to the industrial establishment, employing less than 300 workmen. Some small changes are there here and there which I am not taking you deeply because in the 45 minutes I want to see, I give you a broad outline or a guideline of what changes have come. Now, for example, they have done away with labour courts. Now they say industrial tribunal. They say two judges in the industrial tribunal. With one judge in the industrial tribunal, it used to take 5 years for disposal of a case. With two judges, imagine how long it would take. We don't need number of judges in the bench. We need people who can deliver goods. You will be shocked. Who are these labour court judges? Most of them are above 50-55. Civil judges posted as labour court judges. By the time they understood labour law, they are transferred. A judicial cadre must be developed for appointment of judges to the industrial tribunals. Appointing an IS officer or a KIS officer along with a district judge, calling it a criminal case. When you talk about specialized tribunals, should you not have a specialized cadre or recruitment to manage those tribunals? Can a person who is a judge who is a judge who is a criminal case When you talk about specialized tribunals, should you not have a specialized cadre or recruitment to manage those tribunals? Can a person who is a judge at the age of 55 come and start learning paper law process? What are we doing? Now, these are the areas, unfortunately, to be challenged, and no other changes what the name has been brought into the entire scheme of things. Now, standing orders. Standing orders, I think, made very positive amendments for which I recommend the government. We need applicable now to 300 or more workmen. So in small industries, small factories, to manage this and to have their own service rules and regulations. To that extent, it is a great relief for MSMEs in the country because they can't be engaging big lawyers and insulting lakhs of rupees and managing IR situation. To that extent, they have been given relief is a very, very welcome step. The other good thing about the entire standing order is, in fact, throughout in all the courts, one of the good feature in the amendment is that time limit is fixed beyond which it is said it is a deemed permission, deemed license. They have now said, you submit your standing orders, prepare it yourself in line with the model standing orders, submit to the officer, the authority, the officer who is supposed to certify, and he's supposed to hear and certify within two months. Even amendments should be decided within two months. At the end of two months, if it does not do anything, there's a deemed sanction or a deemed certification. Auto certification, this thing will come to you, letter will come to you. Now, that's wonderful because I know in one or two companies, I have filed repetitions for seven years of profiling the draft certification. Only because they always have wanted a certain amount, which the company was not prepared to pay. So every time the case came, they said, this is with attitude. I had to go and tell the judges, see, this is exactly what's happening in our state. They had to pass an order saying they'll give only six weeks to the gentleman to certify the draft standing and submitting. Do we expect everybody to go to High Court? So to that extent, there is a wonderful change that the government has brought about. To say that within two months, you must finish it. You can't keep beyond two months. If you keep beyond two months, well, if there's a deemed certification, there's nothing else for you to do. Apart from this process, not much of a change has been made in the standing order. It remains the same thing. One great improvement is long back, the Supreme Court said in some Lakeri Siemens' case that you can make standing orders only in respect of matters covered under the schedule to the act. For example, retirement, transfer, visibility action, whatever they are. Those must be there to schedule to the act only in respect of those matters you can make a standing order. Here, a small change I have noticed, to say, and other matters. That means scope of the standing orders or inclusion of terms and service conditions in the standing orders appear to have substantially enlarged. Thereby, you can make a comprehensive standing orders also. The hands of the certifying officers are not tied. That extent, they are given quite a good relief. In the sense, they say, all right, your important matters if it is there, let it be there. Let us do it. In standing orders act, everything is fine. But when you come to the Red Union Act, there is a third enactment, Mr. Vikas, you can stop me whenever you think my time is over so that there's enough time for discussions. Now, Red Union, first time in the country, a concept of recognition of the part of the... For a minute, I'm just taking. As you feel that wherever the product on tours of the entire court could be explained, it's fine with us. Not a question answer, but if you're able to explain it in a much better mind with us. Speed up. Yeah. OK. Red Union, as I was telling you, there has been a lot of debate from a long time in the country as to why there is nothing called compulsory recognition of readiness, except in Maharashtra. I think somewhere I read somewhere in UP. Beyond that, in other states, there is no recognition of Red Union as a compulsory legal obligation. Now, they say for the first time, it is obligatory part of an employer to recognize trade unions. And what has been done is if a trade union has 51% of the total number of employees, then that will be called as a recognized trade union. That is called a negotiating council. So for all requirements of the employees, the negotiating council, which has the support of 51% of the total employees in the roads, will do the discussions negotiation. If it is not possible, then they will make it as a slightly change it and make it as a group of it or negotiating council constituted of more number. 20%, whoever has got 20% of the total, 20% of the total employees as its members will get one seat. So if a trade union has got 42%, it will get two seats. If it has got 60%, it will get three seats. And they will form a sort of a council like that. It's like a committee. Now, this has been enforced in some places. But what has bothered me a little, though this is an excellent provision, because I have seen large number of industrial establishments, at least as I know of in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, fighting over the issue of recognition and fighting to such an extent that a few of the extremely fine industrial establishment closed down. Personally, I know of BPL, which are 12 factories in Bengaluru. The only issue was recognition of the trade union. Management did not foresee it to you. See how you say nothing to you, you have to talk to us. It led to a lot of agitation. Finally, only on that issue, we had to shut down. Well, I've been trying my best in the last more than 40 years to tell employers that you must recognize the union. You can't talk to 300 workmen or 400 workmen or 500 workmen. Each fellow will have his own view. So recognition is required. I can tell you a small example of why recognition is required. In one of my clients, we were giving 11 holidays, National Festival holidays. In a settlement, the union bargained for two more holidays. And the union told the management, we will decide those two holidays. The management said, look here, they say, we have been doing it all these years. We've been doing it, what's your problem? Nothing, we have to decide. It's our decision, you should accept our decision. The management said, all right. Unfortunately, by then, management had put up a list of 13 holidays on the notice board. The workmen stopped work, numbering to more than 1,000 and sent to the union. He should remove that notice. The IR manager called me up, said, what to do? I said, what is this? You are asking me to remove the notice which I put up. What is an insult to the manager? And then it's not an insult. In industrial relations, don't be oversensitive. It's not an insult. Be proud. You listen to me. Yes, sir, what else to do? You are the legal advisor. I have to listen to you. And finally, he went and withdrew the notice. Then we wrote to the union, this is exactly what happened. Please tell us which are the two additional days you want. They called for a general body meeting. In the general body meeting of 1,000 workmen, 68 holidays were proposed by different groups. Somebody said, I will send this. Somebody said, I will send these groups to such an extent. You won't believe, ultimately, the president was so fed up. He told them, no, no, you are unfit to decide to extra. I will write to the management that they can decide to extra. They wrote a letter. Then I told the IR manager, the notice that which you had removed put up the same notice with the same date on. Then he says, sir, my honor, I'm vindicated, sir. My honor is not. I'm happy about it. Why I gave this example one. If you don't have recognized unions, so many things happen. Recognition is the best form of for the good industrial relations. I don't know why some of the employers even today feel, no, no, you're recognizing a union. Getting the union is a very difficult thing. We should do without union. And union should not be there, et cetera, et cetera. But I don't think to that extent, the management's are right in saying they do not want the union. Now, what are the areas which the government has given up, which they should have done? First, to my mind, industrial disputes act, 1947 is one of the best legislations in labor laws that I've seen. There's absolutely no need for the government to tamper with it. I have an injury in leg, no doubt. Am I to cut my leg to treat the injury? Or treat the injury and retain my leg? What a small change in 98. Look at today's scenario. You want to change the working hours by some little here and then. You want to change the leave provision little here and then. You want to change the shift timings a little here and then. But everything 21 days notice. If I have a coffee at the workplace and tell them, look, there is some difficulty. Wherever the coffee center is there, change of workplace, change of service. But everything there is a change of habit. How do you run it? 98 is so draconian that for every small thing, which is absolutely necessary to run establishment. I must give 21 days notice. If I give 21 days notice, the union goes to the conciliation. During the pendency of conciliation, I cannot change without government permission. From there, it goes to adjudication. I cannot change the application process this country. So when do I change? What do I buy then the necessary? So one of the biggest difficulties the employers face in the country in the last 70 years has been these notice of change. I can understand notice of change for bringing down the number of holidays or bringing down wages for bringing down bonus. But not for instead of saying Monday or Sunday is the weekly rest day. I say because of some issue, I want weekly holiday to be changed and so on and so on. Where is 98 notice? If I give 98 notice by the time that I cannot make a change at all. Now this has to go. Because if it is there, there is no end to it. But what did the government do? They have not touched nine here. Number one. I expected the second change in section 33 of the industrial goods act. This protected workmen has become a den for all unruly elements in the factory. What is this protected workmen? You are elected as an office bearer of the union. You want to ensure that you can behave the way you want. So you get elected as president, vice president, secretary, joint secretary, every team members, so on so forth. And 1% of the total strength, minimum of maximum 100, your entire status of protected workmen, which means that if there's a dispute pending anywhere with regard to, normally disputes in larger factories are always pending. You can't take any action against them without taking the permission of the court. How long does it take in Indian courts to grant a permission to dismiss a workmen? Minimum 10 years. And for the entire 10 years, you keep paying wages. You are bound to pay wages for 10 years because until you get permission, you cannot terminate it. You cannot retain him inside because he's a very unruly person. So therefore, we want to change this in section 98, we want to change this in 5B. Why do you want 5B? Nobody puts up, nobody sets up a big plan to close. There is no one who has intention to close down at the time of starting. Everybody wants to make money, employ people, give jobs, produce, make a name, make a plan. Unfortunately, everyone will not succeed. So a time comes when you have to decide whether you have to run or not, but the government will tell you, no, you will not close. That entire 5B is so draconian that it has to go. And then come to 11A is another provision. Many of them come and ask me, sir, my employee is coming late by half an hour, at least three times in a week. Have each one late at right now. I want to take action and dismiss him. You are an expert, tell me whether I can dismiss him. I've told him only one thing. Best thing for you is to go to an astrologer and ask him whether you can dismiss him. Because in my opinion, what happens? There is so much of discipline amongst the judicial officers also. There are a number of officers who come late to the court. If it goes before such a gentleman, you will say, as a district judge, I come 10, 15 to 20 minutes late, and why poor workmen, if you go a little late, what happens, nothing will happen. So you can't dismiss. 11A comes into picture. That is a provision where court can interfere with the quantum of punishment. On the other hand, if it goes before a very sincere, honest judge, he will say yes. If by my coming late, court will start late. But by this fellow not going, machines will not run. Productivity will suffer, production will suffer. That means the whole system of punishing for misconduct has become highly, it is more an objective issue where court will interfere in the quantum of punishment. I'm not supposed to not interfere, but somewhere the line must be drawn in what cases they can intervene. Not in all cases. There was Supreme Court judgment. In one of the Supreme Court judgments in Humbagaura Educational Institutions, versus the state in Karnataka, the Supreme Court said we, we, we, in the Supreme Court are to some extent or to a great extent responsible for indiscipline in the industry. If it were to be tough, if discipline had been given the right due place, we would have been much better. I told this in the division bench with the Supreme Court judge here, he would be doing contempt of court. I said, I'll use the names of judges who pass this order for contempt of court. So what I'm saying is if outsiders, judicial officers start interfering in the quantum of punishment at every stage, it is impossible. Till now they used to say, abusing is abusing nothing after all the abusers. Till just the Santoshik came and took a stand very clearly. Abusing is a serious misconduct for which punishment of this misconduct. In the presence of 500 workmen, a manager is abused, abused in the filthiest words, intolerable words. And then the court says, you only abused nothing very serious. You could have just warned him. So the manager has no cushion of self-respect on or nothing. It is in this context that we expected the government, the parliament to think why country's productivity is suffering, why we are not able to produce, why at the fall of a had the workmen strike war, goes slow is the, some effort is made to tackle goes slow in the new court. Okay, to that extent, I appreciate that change that has been made. Otherwise, as this coalition's board is concerned, much more could have been done while I'm not condemning the government. While I'm not saying crucial areas are still missing. The problems that are plaguing us will continue to plague us. We will still suffer. Flexibility will still suffer. And we are into trouble. For example, I have been to two solicitors from the United States came to Banjibu. Normally in the United States, they send the solicitors to find out the environment, the law and other things before they set up a plan. They said, Mr. Murthy advised a number of multinational from America. So go to him. Somebody is known to them, give the address. They called me to hotel in Sri Lanka and said, we want to have dinner with you. I went, normally I don't go there at all, but I went. They said, Mr. Murthy, sorry to bring you to the house. Only one question for you. Do you have a law or will your industry or law permit termination for inefficiency? They want an answer. Before they recommend putting up money, putting up industry, setting up industry in Karnataka, they want to know, do you have a law which permits us to take action, terminate for inefficiency? I wondering for myself, if inefficiency is a ground, will there be any number of people left in the government service, even in political areas? Inefficiency, the first thing, efficiency is the last thing. Now, if I tell them, no, no, no, you cannot take action for inefficiency. They'll quietly get me the dinner and they'll say, goodbye, thank you. And if I, so I can't tell them like this. Therefore, I had only one choice. I said, look, we don't call it inefficiency in this country. We call it neglect of one. We tell them, when others can do in so many hours, why you cannot do, you know, neglected one. It is through that process, we try to take this for the action, terminate them. Some satisfaction because I don't want them to go with any pressure that I'm giving them any wrong ideas or that there is no relief at all. There is some relief. So this is all I thought I would speak to you on this industrial relations court. I've taken time, I've taken up my time. Now it's for Mr. Vikas to take over and proceed further. Thank you. Thank you all for your patience hearing. Thank you, sir. So, since you have given the comparative studies of the industrial relations court coupled with the, what were the challenges in the Industrial Dispute Act, Trade Union Act and the Industrial Employment Standing Orders. Like we see that whether there has been any change in the industrial relations court and the Standing Order like any state used to be, what would be the trade union? Who will be considered as to be the main trade union under the new act according to you? Madan? Trade union representation. Yes, yes. 51% and 75% would be considered as the, Yes. Yes. Yeah. Yes, sorry I got myself muted. I'm just checking as to whether. So according to you, what would be the broader difference and what is the change of dynamics from like originally the industrial establishment used to have, so is it audible? Is it audible? Please, please repeat. Yes, sir. So I was asking like in the Industrial Dispute Act and the industrial court, like let's assume what are the new changes if one wants to retrench a workman? What would be the? What are the new changes for the, let's assume somebody's want to be laid off or retrenched? The rule is the same which was there earlier, except that as on date, if you want to lay off retrench all closed down, you have to take permission of the government if you engage 100 or more workmen. Once a court comes into operation, instead of 100 it'll be 300, less than 300 workmen, you can close down or retrench or lay off without going to government. 300 or more will go to government as it was, as it is even today, seeking permission to lay off or retrench all closed. Okay. And what are the new changes for a strike part under the Trade Union Act? The strike is what I say 14 days notice. He is totally is going to rein the industry. How can I give 14 days of notice of lockout? I don't understand the government's thinking. Supposing there is something going on very seriously inside. Impossible. Officers are being put in a room and casual, no strike. And obviously beaten, no strike. I have to lock out. How to lock out? How do I give 14 days notice? I need an immediate relief. That is immediately I want all the workmen to get out of the factory. So that violence doesn't spread. But I'm told you must give 14 days notice. This is a highly retrograde step. There are situations. They must have some exception in case of violence. Management may lock out even without giving notice. Next question will be, supposing the management misuse. There is a court which are looking into it. What was the violence? Who was hurt? Whether it happened, whether it comes under that exception, whether what they have done is right or wrong. All this can be gone into. But can you blanket? Say nothing doing. And so what are the challenges like? Now we have that fixed employment, fixed term employment protection. Fixed term employment is a big fraud on the employers of this country, Mr. Vikas. Because I have written several articles on this in the last five, six years. What is fixed term employment? Employing for a given period. Say two years or three years. You are employed for three years. It's called fixed term employment. At the end of three years, it automatically ceases. What if I start a factory today with 200 workmen and appoint everyone for two years? At the end of two years, I send them home. At half the salary, I bring another 200 people. I keep them for another two years and send them. What happens to security of service? What is all this labor law about? What is all this service law about? Therefore, this fixed term employment is a fraud, I say repeatedly because if you read the existing section 2.0.0.B.B. 2.0.0.B.B. was introduced into the definition of a trade crime to say that a workman employed under a contract of employment for a fixed period yet. And when this fixed period comes to an end, the employment automatically comes to an end. It was an exception to retrenchment. You need not go to the government for permission. Now, that was already there. The courts interpreted that, including Supreme Court. What did the court say? Look here, I say, you have a man for three years. He had learned the job. Now he were to keep on increasing his salary. You quietly ask him to go saying I've appointed you on a fixed term for three years and bring another man to the same place. Very security of employment. What happens in section 25H? 25H of the industry that is put aside says when you retrench a workman, fine. But when you want to increase your strength, you must call the retrench workman first. All that law which is still in the statute book which will continue to be in the statute book given into the court are given a go-by in this fixed term employment. There's nothing like fixed term employment. This is fraud, straight fraud because you are telling the employer, employee for fixed term and throw them out. No, courts will not allow that. The government must know what the courts have said on fixed term employment. Courts have categorically told us, look here gentlemen, only work which by itself get exhausted in a given time is allowed for fixed term employment. For example, I have brought 100 new machines. I want to do time study of these machines. I need three engineers. Three engineers need to work for two years to make time study. So those three engineers carry out a time study for two years. At the end of two years, time study is over, job is over, they will go. That is fixed term employment. I can't say CSE machine which has been operated today will be operated by somebody else tomorrow because this period is over. Then why have all these books, all these industrial law, all the volumes of industrial law written by judges from last 70 years, it's all waste. Justice Krishna said, any worker who works for two months in a period of 12 months, swims into the harbor of... So this is not working. This won't work. Yeah. The last question I will take is that I have also experienced while practicing, at least in some parts of the private sectors, I've seen that people tend to join in a... Who's a workman, tend to join some other company. And thereafter, they also claim to the effect that the employer wants to show that there is an abandonment. And ultimately, he says that I've been retrenched. And he orders his reinstatement. I have seen a few of the cases from Panipatayat had, wherein I had seen that he had, in fact, joined some other company, though it couldn't be proved. But he said that he has wrongly been retrenched and he claimed his reinstatement, whereas it was a case of abandonment. Do you feel that this has been plugged in the new court or no? No, there's nothing in the new court. There's nothing in the new court. What I want to say is when he joins... He was invariably employed of abandonment, whereas he takes the stand of retrenchment. Abandonment, you see, abandonment is a different concept altogether. Supreme Court says abandonment should be accompanied by intention to give up, intention to give up. I don't want to say I'm working with a certain company X now. After 10 days without telling you, I go and join your competitor. Abandon you straight away. But you cannot say if I don't come for 10 days and abandon employment, you will have to demonstrate to the court, look at this gentleman, this fellow who was working with me, went and joined so-and-so company. And that is very easy, unique number under the Prodigal Fund Act, whichever company he goes, from going into his account number, he's working. This is precisely what we are doing because a good workman to get a good salary must join a good company. He will not join some useless company when he has worked with a good company. He will try to find out a better company and all of them are covered until the judge, he left me, another company. Now where's the question of his statement? Does it arise? Do you feel that there should be some linkage of the workman as such to the fact that let's assume his credentials are codified just like a fingerprint, so that let's assume he's drawing salary from somewhere else. So that lacuna can be plugged in that he's working somewhere else. There can be identification in some manner of salary, et cetera. Because these workmen sometimes... Many times, many times. In fact, more than 60, 70% of the workmen work with the court. They go there not to get back work from you, get back to your factory. They go there to get some monetary compensation while they will be working in some other place. Now, difficulty is... Wherever there is an industrial hub. Yes. Difficulty is... I think wherever there is an industrial hub, this problem does arise. Wherever there is? An industrial hub, people do shift from one company to the other. Correct. And then they say that we say that it's an abandonment. The employees are sometimes taking legal advices from people like you. And they, ultimately, serve. The delivery is very... Today, I'm going to share with you now that you said this. More than industry contact me directly. And who gets contact? After messing up the whole thing, they telephone to the... They tell their client, there's a lawyer in Jaymega, well-known in Labour Law, Sarkar. You take this file and go to him. So, when he brings the file, I know it has been totally ruined. And only to get rid of that man from his cabin, he sends me to my cabin. There's good advice what you're talking about. It's very, very, very, very crucially true. Which industry must... High time the industry must apply. If there's no point in appointing a retired Labour officer as your... Because he will do it for 1,000 or 2,000 rupees per month. The problem is, if you want to talk to Murti, you must take an appointment, go, sit there, talk to him, discuss with him, pay his fees, which invariably... Can advocate for almost 19 years. So, he will charge more. And some of them... Some of the consultants deliberately spread the information in Karnataka that SNMurti charges very high, so that they may not come out. So, all these things, you know, employer must decide. Whereas in finance, the employers take the best man. They don't do that for a year. Good advice is it, but you're right, 100% right. Because I have said, in industrial law, the entire atmosphere, the position of law, the statutes, rules, are all with Labour. And including the judge. So, that means you will be 100% legal. You will make it impossible for the judge to pass an order against you. Because even if he gets the slightest opportunity, he will pass the order against the employer. That is the trick. From the beginning, that is the trick. Can we show the cause? So, one question was, what would be the distinction I will ask because somehow the net had failed. One had asked the question, what would be the subtle difference between a contract, contractual employee and a workman as such? Contract employee and contract workman. Yes. That is appointed through a contractor. Contract labor. One question, yes. One had asked, since you have not touched the issue of through appointment through a contractor. Now, I will be taking this last question. We have largely seen that even in the governmental organisation, now the employment has been outsourced through a contractor. So, do you feel that the doctrine of lifting of will can be applied in such cases to say therein that the government is the principal employer and therefore the employer who has been employed through a contractor under this Act of 1971. By applying the doctrine of will, we can say that the government is the principal employer. Therefore, his services for all intents and purposes should be controlled by the government itself and he could not be replaced by another person because this type of litigation of late has started off wherein we find that the government takes the stand that they have given the entire contractual employment to a contractor. And contractor, he keeps on changing the employees. So, you feel that he will have the protection because way back in 2002 with HSEB versus Suresh Kumar, the law came into being wherein they said that you can lift the veil and then see who is the principal employer or whether he has taken the exemption under section 10 of the Act. This is section 10 of the Act has been forgotten by the governments. Very early they used section 10. With the result, the objective of having section 10 in the Act is defeated. Number one, two, is still authority case constitution bench clearly said two things. One is the contract will be a genuine contract. It should not be a sham contract. What is a sham contract? They said, lift the veil. Lift the veil. Lift the veil is a sham contract. This precisely what Supreme Court said in still authority, five judges sitting there saying. But what I am saying is look at the court today. I'm not on, I think contract level is not covered here but I'll answer the question. I think I'll take that in the next but I'll answer this question. There has been a lot of fight between the unions and the management with regard to contract labor. To my mind, contract labor is a way of exploiting labor. And permanent workmen are very happy if they are a contract workmen because they work less and allow the contract labor to work more. Government fight is convenient because they are given away Bombay airport. They are given away Chennai airport. They are given away Bangalore airport all to the private people. They have a lot to wash off their hands. It would have been a very nice thing if the government had taken, gone into it at the depth and made certain improvements in that field. But on the other hand, it's a very solid state of affairs that in the recent amendment, they have taken a retrograde step. What they have said now is contractor means they have divided it into two portion. Contractor means a person who agrees to produce a given result for an establishment number one. Number two. Contractor means a person who supply, who merely supplies labor. The word merely, earlier merely was not there. So Supreme Court in Haryana state electricity board said nothing doing. It's a sham contract. You put all of them on your roads. 1,100 linemen of Haryana state. Now, the government is just to satisfy their requirement have committed amendment of the definition of contractor where a person who merely provides labor is also a contractor. So don't ask about sham now. No lifting avail, no sham contract. Steel authority judgments thrown to the winds. Now I can sit in my room. I've got 5,000 people with me. Mr. Vikas says send me 1,000 people, I'll send 1,000 people. What Mr. Vikas does with it is his position. I'll simply send them nothing, no supervision, no control. I'll tell them, go ahead reported so and so to Mr. So and so. I get my money. They have made it easy to employ a contractor. On the other hand, they should have made it tougher. But it's the other way around. Only precaution, precaution they have taken in. They have defined what is known as non-core objects now for the first time. When Mr. Chandrababu Naidu was the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh, they had done it long back, way back. Now government of India has opened up. They don't say what is core activity. They say which are the non-core activities. They have listed it. And they said in those activities, you can engage practically. That means in core activity, it will give credit to the government to have thought of it, at least to that extent. Now, this we like to see how we call, when money speaks, grammar does not matter in this country. So officers will interpret the way you want. It's only question of how much you can part with. So you have to wait. Before parting for the day, like you said that the money makes the interpretation the way it is. In the law, there's another wording. They say that a lawyer reads what is written in law. And a good lawyer is one like you who makes me quote, read the manner in which you want to read. Yeah, but then many a time judges, poor fellows, I understand their anxiety. They can't deviate from the written words. They try to interpret. They try to somehow see that a good correct meaning is given. But with all that, they are still finding it difficult. I mean, the wordings are so clear as what they have done. Now with the change in the definition of contractor, I'm afraid contract level will be more and more deployed. But there is there are restrictions. If it is implemented in good spirits, without looking into other requirements and things, core activities, you can avoid contract level. That means there's something that is done. Now, if you look at, for example, Airports Authority of India. Airports Authority of India is supposed to maintain airports, establish and maintain airports. Now, the core activity is to establish airports and maintain airports. How can you give that one contract to somebody else tomorrow once the code comes? The trouble starts from there. Somebody was telling me about three, four, for the last four or five years. Sorry, your time was the best time in seven days and you came out of labor problems. You did your master degree, made a name, made money, made fortune, everything. What about us? There are no problems at all. I said, don't worry, as long as government of India is what you will have problem. I can assure my youngsters in the profession, next 40 to 50 years, they will have enough and more of mitigation. Right, sir. I'm just reminded as of, like you said, a lot of lawyers and a lot of people speak about you to the effect that you did your best. I'm just, on the parting shot, we will say that they say, where there is a law, there is a flaw. And where there is a flaw, there has to be a lawyer. And where there is a lawyer, then it has to be a smoothie. And so tomorrow's session, we take a step further for PM, discipline proceedings with special reference to pensionary matters thereafter. By PS Rajal Gopal, senior at work from Karnataka. So do stay connected with us tomorrow. And to all those participants who have been watching us live on the Facebook, as well as on this platform, we are thankful to Trivikram, who introduced us to Mr. Esan Murthy. And to all those participants, stay safe, stay blessed and take the things forward after taking the insights from what Mr. Esan Murthy said that he has shown the insights of the topic and you can take the things forward. Thank you, everyone. Stay safe. Jai Hind. Thank you. Moshka. Thank you. I too.