THE backlog of about 22,000 cases lying with 13 labour courts and the only appeals tribunal shows the sorry state of the legal management of worker rights. Tribunal data say that 21,891 cases are now stuck, with 13,402 of them pending for more than six months. This is hardly surprising when some 4.05 million cases were pending, as of September 2023, were pending 鈥� 528,583 with the Supreme Court and more than 3.4 million with subordinate courts. Most of the cases filed with labour court originate in the apparel sector and concern disputes over layoff, dismissal, wage arrears, delayed payment, workplace injury and trade union rights. Delays are compounded by employers鈥� repeated time petitions, frequent absenteeism of labour court members and writ petitions filed by owners in higher courts to stall lower court verdicts. In a system where legal recourse is structurally sluggish, with chances for manipulation, the first casualty is justice itself. And, workers, already exploited at workplace, are made to suffer all over again in their struggle for redress.
Litigants in labour courts are left in limbo for months, even years, as the pace of justice stalls under structural inefficiencies. This protracted wait imposes a disproportionate burden on workers, many of whom are already economically vulnerable. Attending hearings often requires taking unpaid leave, which only deepens their financial constraints. The process that is meant to serve justice becomes a source of further hardship, instead. Compounding this injustice is the conduct of employers, who frequently exploit legal loopholes to delay or defy verdicts. In some cases, they simply ignore rulings in favour of workers without even lodging formal appeals, a practice that should no longer continue. The frequent absence of court members further erodes the credibility of the system and compounds delays. Such propositions embolden employers in deterring workers from seeking legal recourse. The structural drawbacks call for an early administrative attention. Higher authorities should, therefore, ensure full and regular functioning of courts, monitor legal loopholes routinely abused by employers and increase the number of courts and judges, if required, to resolve the backlog. Simultaneously, prioritising older cases based on merit could help to ease the burden. It could offer partial relief and restore some degree of trust in the process.
The authorities should, therefore, treat the situation as a structural failure. Legal reforms, administrative oversight and adequate resourcing should be approached as interlinked imperatives. The authorities should consider expediting the resolution of labour disputes and digitising court procedures to improve transparency. A central mechanism to oversee case proceedings could also help to reduce the procedural abuse.
