Editorial, "Employment Rights." in LAW ANIMATED WORLD, 30 April 2012 issue (Vol. 8, Part 1, No. 8):

EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS

are getting more and more constricted it seems, rather than being 

broadened, although we profess the ideal of a democratic socialist republic 

assuring social, political and economic justice, together with several 

individual liberties, to the people, at least on the paper of our Constitution. 

Though the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, as amended from time to time, is 

stated to be a social welfare legislation, made mainly to aid the working 

classes, basically its aim and object are declared as achieving industrial 

peace and creating a congenial climate to both the employers and workers. 

Also its scope is circumscribed since it only applies to the workmen as 

defined therein but not to all employees. It gives the workers several 

employment rights no doubt, but it is not an employment rights law 

proper. The remedial mechanisms created thereby are not amply efficient 

or broad in scope; the labour courts are not even declared to be courts 

proper, though high level judicial officers are sought to be placed as 

presiding officers. The greatest drawback is that even the workmen cannot 

directly approach the industrial tribunals/labour courts for many 

grievances but at the same time their approach to civil courts is subtly 

barred citing these very tribunals/labor courts as effective alternative 

remedies! In contrast, we find the government employees, doubtless a 

‘creamy layer’ among the employees, accorded Administrative Tribunals 

to which they can directly take their grievances on sundry matters – even 

such ones as stoppage of increments. It is really a strange type of socialism 

and social welfare measures prevailing in India, like relatively fat-salaried 

govt. employees being accorded concession bus passes at Rs. 200-300 per 

month while general workers/self-employed poor with low wages of 2000-

5000 p.m. are constrained to buy bus passes at Rs. 400-500 p.m., to cite just 

one example. On the eve of May Day we desire and suggest that people 

demand and fight for a change in such a woeful state of affairs and achieve 

a sound employment rights law with broad-in-scope, powerful labor courts 

for effective and expeditious redress of their many grievances. §§§

Editorial in LAW ANIMATED WOLD, 15 April 2012 issue: "RIGHT TO EDUCATION"

RIGHT TO EDUCATION

is, doubtless, an inalienable part of the right to life of human beings in society, and it has been so recognized by various national and international covenants and basic laws. It was the Mohini Jain decision of the early 1990’s which, for the first time, breathed this right into the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of our Constitution but, sadly, it has been reversed by a later larger bench of the Apex Court. Coming just a year later, the Unnikrishnan decision struck a via media by recognizing the need for free or affordable higher education to the economically weaker and deprived sections and allotting them at least 50% of ‘free’ seats in all private colleges, which did contribute to stem the tide of trading in education to a considerable extent. However, coming about a decade later, the TMA Pai Foundation decision by thirteen heads of justice has unfortunately reversed the trend of catering to the weal and woe of the ‘wretched of the earth’ by putting a firm stamp of approval on the almost indiscriminate commercialization of education that began to run full speed in the recent phase of capitalist globalization. The damaging effects of this deplorable decision are there to be seen not only in the sphere of higher education but even in the field of primary education. It may be noted that soon after this TMA Pai decision, free and compulsory primary education to all children of 6-14 years age was made a fundamental right by bringing a new Article 21-A into our Constitution. The recent Apex Court decision validating the RTE Act passed by the Parliament in pursuance of Article 21A, which directs private educational institutions also to share the burden, to some extent, of rendering free education to the children, is being hailed as a blow for the rights of children, especially of the weaker sections. But the point remains that it is not just some but all children, i.e. each and every child, that are entitled to the benefit of this basic right. In this context, the very privatization of primary education comes up for questioning; and it seems the sooner it is done away with and replaced by a caring and efficient public education system the better §§§