Right To Sit: Just A “Chair” Or Dignity “Denied”

Historical Background

During the British Raj, a Kursi Nashin certificate was used to sit before British officials and Mughals. This right to sit was seen as a mark of status and obedience. If this certificate is not issued, one may need to stand for prolonged periods. This practice aligns with how modern retail workers and other employers cannot demand to sit even when their legs hurt. This certificate or this right is not confined to an object that is a chair, but symbolizes control and debates on human empathy and decency^[1]. During the colonial rule, the British imposed strict regulations on labourers, especially those working in plantations and factories. They were seen as profit-making machines.The right to sit can be seen as a labourer's right, a way to empower gender, and carve a pathway to end discrimination. Employers or the boss might try to instigate the very thought of standing constantly being equal to a hard-working individual. Sitting is considered a sign of a lazy person and puts a question on their professionalism. Karl Marx states this as a form of creating a false consciousness by the capitalist and denotes a class struggle of who decides your time and space.

Labour Laws were born out of struggle where demands for fair working hours, minimum rests and the right to organize were put forward. Earlier labour laws like the Factories Act (1833) were not introduced for the welfare of Indian workers but to protect the economic interest of the Britishers as British textile mill owners especially in Lancashire and Manchester saw that Indian textile mills were producing clothes more cheaply and British saw it as a competition. They pressured British colonial government to enact a law that will make Indian labour more expensive and limit their woeking hours making the production cost much higher in India^[2]. Later on, with the establishment of the International Labor Organization led the global narrative of labour work should be equitable to dignified. Trade unions were formed to collectively fight against the oppressive rules of the colonial. With the landmark development like Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which replaced pre colonial Trade Disputes Act 1929 aimed for a more robust empowerment of labourers, including fair wages, just and humane working conditions, introduced unfair labour practices and the establishment of labour courts. The first wave was about proper compensation, timely working hours, and against monopolies in the market; the second wave, however, covers a holistic development of an employer with proper working conditions and addresses problems to the required committees.

In countries like Israel, precedents have been observed on the right to sit, such as in Dizengof Club v. Zoeili, the nature of work should be determined first, whether standing is essential for the job or not. The court ruled that a job's nature, workload, job requirements, and properties are essential to grant this right. In the case of Elad Daniel v. Fox Group, a whopping 53 million dollar class action was brought due to the poor quality chair provided by the company^[3]. Hence, this right has been legally recognized globally. Also Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 23 states right to just and favourable conditions of work. Article 23(3) highlights “Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration, ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity” clearly shows that employment role does not only revolve around getting wages, it is also about leading a life of respect and dignity^[4].

Tamil Nadu And Kerala's Strong Steps Towards Acknowledging The Right

Despite having a constitutional right that guarantees the Right to Life under Article 21 and just and humane conditions at work under Article 42 DPSP, the law remains silent on workers' right to demand proper seating, particularly in sectors like retail or shops. In India, according to the Shops and Establishment Acts, however varies from state to state, the maximum working hours per week are 48 and per day 9 hours with mandatory breaks of half an hour after every 5 hours, with total time not exceeding 10 and a half hours per day^[5]. In spite of these limits being specified, women, especially those working in retail and hospitality, are not given adequate breaks. While the law specifies adequate working hours and breaks but the workplace enforces a different rule and denies this basic bodily dignity to the employee. Kerala became the first state to even acknowledge that this is a right that can be asked. It was an agitation led by female workers in Kozikhode SM's street, where the demands revolved around access to restrooms, the right to sit, and fair compensation for their contributions in their workplace^[6]. The exploitation of saleswomen in the workplace not only questions labour laws but also addresses a deep-rooted gender bias that exists in our society.

In response to this, the Kerala government passed the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments (Amendment) Act, 2018, which expanded employee definition that now to include apprentices also. Every employee in a shop is now entitled to a holiday each week. Adequate seating facilities were introduced in section 21B, which states, “Every employer shall provide suitable arrangements for sitting for all employees so that they may take advantage of any opportunity for rest which may occur in the course of their work.”^[7]. Prolonged standing poses health risks to joints and ligaments and takes a physical toll on the body. Denial of the right to sit is not confined to labour issues but poses a violation under the Right to Health. The Supreme Court in CERC v. Union of India (1995) held that the Right to health is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21^[8]. As the previous cases expressed the need for right to health or right to privacy be judicially recognized under Article 21, Right to Sit can also be interpreted in the ambit of the same in the future if it poses health risks.

The Unprotected Class

The right to sit is not being guaranteed to normal employees all over India; the story is far from applicable to interns. Oftentimes, workplaces provide internships to make students familiar with their fields and gain practical knowledge. Interns are treated as invisible labour, mostly being either denied paid or paid excessively low for the amount of hours they put in. Interns are expected to stand or hover in the workplace until expressly designated a place to sit. Mutually respected workplaces are a gem for interns. Ego satisfaction has been the main goal for hiring interns nowadays. Learning should not come at the cost of dignity. Globally, in countries like France, internships are protected and regulated under labour law. Interns are now entitled to the same maximum working hours and rest periods as employees. They are not allowed to work longer hours than employees, and they cannot be assigned to 'dangerous' tasks. Interns are also entitled to access staff restaurants or company food stamps, have paid holidays, and subsidised transport to work^[9]. In India interns are not considered as employees, neither in the adopted law of Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 nor in Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) circular dated October 12, 2015, stating that student trainees will not be considered as employees if they are enrolled in a recognized educational institution, training is a part of the academic curriculum for example in fields like MBA, Law, engineering, CA etc. The internship should be of limited duration, and the work should not be revenue-generating^[10]. If these particular conditions are not met, then they may be classified as an employee. Employers cannot escape their responsibilities towards employees by labelling them as trainees. The superficial labels of intern and trainee were also seen in the case of Andhra Prabha (P) Ltd. v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, 1996 where the main issue arose whether the trainees are employees under the Employment State Insurance Act. The court found that behind the label of trainee, these people were actual employees because they performed regular work, had a provident fund and ESI deducted, hence providing a view that such labels cannot be used to deny labour protections^[11]. Interns are often stranded with a confusing identity under Indian Labour laws, as they do not receive provident funds or any salary slips from the employer. The renumeration is often time performance-based based creating more uncertainty about getting paid at the end of their time likely depends on the employer's goodwill^[12]. In recent times, France saw a surge in the number of interns and most of them were overworked and exploited thus, an Internship law was adopted named Law no. 2014-788 of 10 July 2014 that aimed to improve the working condition of interns by providing them with same working hours and rest periods as that of employees. A maximum time period of 6 months was given and a tripartite agreement must be signed between the intern, employer and the educational institution^[13]. Thus, for now, interns are stranded in a grey zone in India, but with growing times and the increase in the demand for practical skills in the job market, interns might get recognized legally and receive the dignity and fair treatment as received by interns in other countries.

Central laws like the Factories Act, 1948, the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, and the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act do exist, but this particular right to sit is left to the discretion of the state government, whether they will acknowledge it or not. In most Indian states like Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Delhi, Gujarat, or Karnataka, which are the hubs for business, there is no legal guarantee for this right. Prolonged standing can pose health risks to females, especially if they are going through a pregnancy. Even standing during menstruation pain can pose a significant discomfort that goes unnoticed. Also, using the phrase “you cannot sit ” and using it as a tool to showcase discipline can reduce a person's motivation to work in this environment. The newly introduced Labour Codes: the Code on Wages, 2019, the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, the Code on Social Security, 2020, and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, missed their mark to address this issue on a national level.

Views are personal.