FWICE directive against Ranveer Singh could affect future projects, say experts

MUMBAI: If he was, he would be in trouble after the Federation of Western India Cine Employees (FWICE) asked its more than four lakh workers not to work with him, a “non-cooperation directive” that could lead to serious trouble for his films.

Though such an order cannot restrain an individual’s freedom to work, it could definitely cause operational issues for his films, said Sonam Chandwani, managing partner at KS Legal and Associates.

“Until he comes and attends a meeting with us, none of our members will work with him. He is not shooting for anything at the moment. If he begins, we will ensure none of us him,” said a resolute B N Tiwari, president of FWICE.

FWICE, formed in 1956, is the primary trade union and umbrella organisation for film and television workers in India.

Apart from looking after its members, including spot boys, camerapersons, sound engineers and editors, it also steps in to mediate conflicts arising between artists, technicians and production studios.

On Monday, FWICE said its members would not work with Singh following his last-minute exit from Farhan Akhtar’s “Don 3”.According to Chandwani, who specialises in contract law, FWICE’s directive may carry “persuasive and operational weight” within the film industry, but its legal enforceability is not absolute.

“From a strict legal standpoint, a ‘non-cooperation directive’ cannot automatically override contractual rights or restrain an individual’s freedom to work.

Under Indian law, any restriction that effectively prevents a professional from carrying out lawful employment or profession can be challenged as arbitrary or contrary to principles flowing from Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which protects theto practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business,” she told PTI.

Courts in India, Chandwani added, have previously taken a cautious view against industry bodies attempting to impose blanket bans or blacklisting measures without due process or contractual backing.

The FWICE order came after Akhtar and his partner Ritesh Sidhwani filed a complaint against Singh before the Indian Film & Television Directors’ Association (IFTDA), which then referred the matter to FWICE for further intervention.Despite three notices from FWICE, Singh, fresh from the success of “Dhurandhar”, did not respond, said Tiwari.

He only sent an email once the FWICE press conference was announced on Monday, arguing that the federation had no jurisdiction over the dispute.

In a statement after the press conference, the actor stuck to his previous stance of maintaining silence on the issue while wishing success to the franchise.Chandwani said a key legal issue would be whether Singh was under a “binding contractual obligation” when exiting the project and whether his conduct caused demonstrable financial loss or breach.Producers of upcoming projects may become cautious to avoid labour-related disruption, delays in shooting permissions, refusal of technical staff participation, or reputational controversies surrounding production.

In high-budget films, where daily shooting costs are substantial, even indirect non-cooperation from unions can become commercially damaging,” she added.

Tiwari was adamant there would be no backing down.Tiwari referred to a similar order last year against actor-singer Diljit Dosanjh for working with Pakistani actor Hania Aamir in the Punjabi film “Sardaar Ji 3”.

In June, FWICE issued a “non-cooperation directive” when the trailer of the film was released and asked production banner T-Series to drop the actor from the war drama “Border 2”.

“Actors like Sunny (Deol) requested us to allow him (Dosanjh) to work on ‘Border 2’ because work was already underway.

“We’ve told the set department about it… they can’t put up a set for a project that Singh will be working on.

“If the exit was contractually permitted, mutually negotiated, or based on commercial restructuring, then punitive trade action by a workers’ body may struggle to withstand legal scrutiny if challenged before a court,” she said.