Search by Keywords x
contact us contact us | home help



 Welcome Guest | Sep 7 2010
 
Home Skip Navigation Links
Search Judgments by Expand Search Judgments by
Skip Navigation Links
Subject Modules Expand Subject Modules
Skip Navigation Links
State Modules Expand State Modules
Skip Navigation Links
Legal Focus Expand Legal Focus
 

Login

  
Free Demo

Judgments by Category
Search Judgments by
Resources
Subject Modules
Database updates


Judgments (Labour & Industrial Law)

Incharge Officer and another vs Shankar Shetty  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 31 Aug 2010]
Labour & Industrial Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, s. 25F - Retrenchment - Order of reinstatement - Justifiability - Respondent/workman engaged as a daily wager by appellant/Management - Appellant terminated the service of respondent - An industrial dispute was raised by respondent and such dispute was referred to Labour Court - Respondent contended that appellant had failed to follow the procedure prescribed u/s. 25F of the Act while terminating his service - Labour Court held that s. 25F of the Act was not attracted in the present case since the workman failed to prove that he had worked continuously for 240 days in the calendar year preceding the date of his termination - Respondent challenged the Labour Court order before the HC - Single Judge reversed the Labour Court order and directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent - DB, subsequently, confirmed the Single Judge order - Should an order of reinstatement automatically follow in a case where the engagement of a daily wager has been brought to end in violation of s. 25F of the Act - Held, SC, in Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Anr., 2009 INDLAW SC 893, held that, in case of retrenchment, the relief by way of reinstatement with back wages was not automatic and might be wholly inappropriate and compensation instead of reinstatement would meet the ends of justice - Followed the decision of Jagbir Singh case - Respondent was engaged as daily wager in 1978 and his engagement continued for about 7 years intermittently up to the date of his termination, i.e., about 25 years back - HC erred in granting relief of reinstatement to the respondent - Relief of reinstatement cannot be justified and instead monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice in the present case - Direction issued to the appellant to pay the compensation to respondent within the stipulated time - Appeal partly allowed.
State of West Bengal vs Subhas Kumar Chatterjee and others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 17 Aug 2010]
Labour & Industrial Law - Constitution - Revision of Pay and Allowances Rules, 1998 - Constitution of India, 1950, art. 323-A - Pay scale - Respondents (Research Assistants) approached the Tribunal claiming revision of scale of pay and fixation of benefits w.e.f 1st April, 1981 in scale no. 14 - Tribunal disposed of the matter directing the Chief Engineer to dispose of the same by a reasoned order - Chief Engineer extended the scale no. 11 to the respondents which was not acceptable to the State Government - On appeal, HC dismissed petition filed against said order - Hence, present appeal - (A) Whether the Administrative Tribunal can delegate its power of judicial review and confer the same upon a Chief Engineer? - Held, Tribunals cannot go beyond the power conferred on them and delegate their essential function and duty to decide service related disputes - Such delegation is ab initio void - Power conferred upon the Administrative Tribunals under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 flows from art. 323-A of the Constitution - Such power can never be delegated except under a valid law made by Parliament - (B) Whether the decision of Chief Engineer operates as res- judicata? - Held, HC committed an error in construing the orders passed by the Chief Engineer as a decision - There was no adjudication as such of any lis between the parties by the Chief Engineer - The Chief Engineer in law was not entitled to decide any dispute and much less with regard to any dispute and complaint with respect to conditions of service of any persons appointed to public posts controlled by the State Government - Administrative decisions by the executive authorities do not bind the courts and much less operate as res judciata - Hence, view taken by the Chief Engineer that the respondents were entitled to scale No.11, cannot operate as res judicata - (C) Whether a writ of mandamus lies compelling the State to act contrary to law? - Held, the Government cannot act contrary to the rules nor the Court can direct the Government to act contrary to rules - No court can issue Mandamus directing the authorities to act in contravention of the rules as it would amount to compelling the authorities to violate law - Such directions may result in destruction of rule of law - In the present case, the impugned order of the HC virtually compelled the State to give pay scales contrary to statutory rules under which pay scales of the employees are fixed - The decision of the Chief Engineer being contrary to Revision of Pay and Allowances Rules, 1998, cannot be enforced even if such a decision was taken under the directions of the Administrative Tribunal - The orders of the Tribunal as well as of the HC are liable to be set aside - Appeal allowed.
Triveni Engineering and Industries Limited vs Jaswant Singh and another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 11 Aug 2010]
Labour & Industrial Law - UP Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Jurisdiction - Respondent no. 1 was transferred - Respondent no. 1 did not join the work place where he was transferred in pursuance of the said order - Services terminated - Respondent no. 1 challenged said transfer order before HC - HC disposed of said writ petition, leaving the respondent no. 1 at liberty to move a representation before the Labour Commissioner - Respondent no. 1 filed representation before Labour Commissioner which was challenged by appellant submitting that respondent no. 1 is not a workman - Labour Commission held that the question whether respondent no.1 was a workman under the UP Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 could not be decided under Clause 'W' of the Standing Orders - On appeal, Single Judge held that the representation of the respondent no. 1 under Clause 'W' of the Standing Orders was not maintainable and that the Labour Commissioner had rightly rejected the same - DB set aside the orders of the Labour Commissioner as also of the Single Judge and remitted the matter back to the Labour Commissioner to decide the nature of service of the respondent no. 1 in accordance with law - Hence, present appeal filed by the appellant submitting that effect of the DB's order would be that the Labour Commissioner who is permitted to receive evidence could also be permitted to decide whether or not the respondent no. 1 is a workman - Appellant further submitted that said issue cannot be decided by the Labour Commissioner as power and jurisdiction is restricted - Whether order of the HC could be upheld? - Held, no - The issue of whether or not a person is a 'workman' within the meaning of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a matter to be decided by a competent court, after allowing the parties to lead evidence - Thereafter, on proper appreciation of the materials on record including the oral evidence, a decision could be rendered and the issue could be determined - The enquiry before the Labour Commissioner is of a summary nature and while exercising such a power of summary nature, the Labour Commissioner cannot decide and examine factual matters relating to an issue as to whether or not the person concerned is a workman or not - DB committed a mistake in determining the said issue as an ancillary to that of the applicability and interpretation of the Standing Order - Hence, impugned judgment of DB set aside and restore the orders passed by the Single Judge as also by the Labour Commissioner - Appeal allowed.
Sushil Kumar Singhal vs Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 10 Aug 2010]
Labour & Industrial Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 409 - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, s. 12 - Reinstatement - Appellant-Peon in the respondent-Bank was handed over cash of Rs.5000/-, to deposit the same as dues for the Telephone Bill in the Post Office - However, it was not deposited by the appellant, therefore, the bank lodged FIR u/s. 409 of IPC against the appellant - Appellant was tried for the said offence and was convicted by the competent Criminal Court - On appeal, appellate Court maintained the conviction, but granted him the benefit of probation under The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and released the appellant on probation - Subsequently, Respondent-Bank dismissed the appellant from service on the ground of conviction of the appellant in criminal case - Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appellant from service on the ground of conviction of the appellant in criminal case involving moral turpitude - HC dismissed petition filed by appellant against said order - Hence, present appeal - Whether the benefit granted to the appellant under The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 makes him entitled to reinstatement in service? - Held, conviction in a criminal case is one part of the case and release on probation is another - Therefore, grant of benefit of the provisions of Act, 1958, only enables the delinquent not to undergo the sentence on showing his good conduct during the period of probation - In case, after being released, the delinquent commits another offence, benefit of Act, 1958 gets terminated and the delinquent can be made liable to undergo the sentence - Therefore, in case of an employee who stands convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude, it is his misconduct that leads to his dismissal - Dismissal from service upheld - Appeal dismissed.
Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union vs Tata Memorial Centre and another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 09 Aug 2010]
Labour & Industrial Law - Constitution - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971, s. 2(3) - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, s. 2(a) - Respondent No. 2 filed two applications sought cancellation of the recognition of the appellant union u/s. 13 of the MRTU and PULP Act as the recognized union under respondent No. 1 and application for substitution of second respondent in place of the appellant, as the recognized union - Industrial court held that 'appropriate government' for the first respondent was the State Government' - On appeal, Single Judge held that the first respondent is an autonomous body and though the Central Government was funding the first respondent partially, it had only a partial control thereof - Single Judge accepted the findings of the Industrial Court on the issue of appropriate government to be just, legal and proper and, therefore, dismissed the Writ Petition - DB held that the Central Government was the appropriate government for the first respondent and allowed the appeal - Consequently, it set aside the orders passed by the Single Judge as well as by the Industrial Court - Hence, present appeal - Whether the first respondent functions under the authority of the Central Government as its delegate as held by the Division Bench or is functioning as an independent entity? - Held, property dedicated to the first respondent has not been transferred to the Society by the Central Government - But the fact is that it is the Governing Council of the first respondent which has been administering and controlling the day to day affairs of respondent no. 1 and its property funds, employment of its staff and their conditions of service - Hence, property dedicated to the first respondent will be deemed to be vested in the Governing Council of the first respondent - Moreover, evidence of the Chief Administrative Officer of respondent no. 1 establishes that there was no interference of the Central Government in the day to day activities of the first respondent - The decisions were taken by the directors of the first respondent itself - Hence, State Government shall have to be held as the appropriate government for the respondent no. 1 for the purpose of Industrial Dispute Act - Impugned order of DB set aside and order of the Industrial Court and Single Judge restored - Appeal allowed.
Vijaya Bank vs Shyamal Kumar Lodh  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 06 Jul 2010]
(A) Constitution - Labour & Industrial Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ss. 7 and 33C - Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1964 (Act 36 of 1964), s. 23 - Jurisdiction - Suspension/subsistence allowance - Respondent-employee of the appellant-nationalised bank filed application before Labour Court u/s.7 of ID Act for an award computing his suspension/subsistence allowance u/s. 33C(2) of ID Act - Labour court issued notice to the appellant - Appellant questioned Labour Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute on the ground that the said Court having not been specified by the Central Government u/s. 33C(2) of ID Act, it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application - Labour Court over-ruled that objection and held that its jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute is not ousted - Appellant preferred writ petition against said order - Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the aforesaid order - DB allowed appeal filed against said order and held that as the Labour Court at Dibrugarh has not been specified by the Central Government, it had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition preferred by the respondent - However, on its finding that claim of subsistence allowance falls within s. 10A(2) of the suspension/subsistence allowance, and the Branch of the Bank where the respondent was working, fell within the limits of jurisdiction of Labour Court in question, it shall have jurisdiction to decide the claim - Hence, present appeal - Whether Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain application filed by the respondent when said Court having not been specified by the Central Government u/s. 33C(2) of ID Act? - Held, as per explanation appended to s. 33C(2) of ID Act, Labour Court shall include any Court constituted under any law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in any State - Money due to an employee under s. 33C(2) is to be decided by Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government - Therefore, the expression 'Labour Court' in s. 33C(2) has to be given an extended meaning so as to include Court constituted under any law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in any State - It widens the choice of appropriate Government and it can specify not only the Labour Courts constituted u/s. 7 of ID but such other Courts constituted under any other law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in any State - Hence, Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain application filed by the respondent - Appeal dismissed.

(B) Constitution - Labour & Industrial Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ss. 7 and 33C -Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1964 (Act 36 of 1964), s. 23 - Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, s. 10-A - Jurisdiction - Suspension/subsistence allowance - Whether Labour Court at Dibrugarh could have entertained the application u/s. 10-A of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946? - Held, from a plain reading of s. 10A(2) of Act it is evident that the Labour Court constituted under the ID Act, 1947 within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the establishment is situated, has jurisdiction to decide any dispute regarding subsistence allowance - In the present case undisputedly dispute pertains to subsistence allowance and the Labour Court where the workman had brought the action has been constituted u/s. 7 of the ID Act, 1947 and further the appellant bank is situated within the local limits of its jurisdiction - Workman had, though, chosen to file application u/s. 33C(2) of the ID Act but that it shall not denude jurisdiction to the Labour Court, if it otherwise possesses jurisdiction - Incorrect label of the application and mentioning wrong provision neither confers jurisdiction nor denudes the Court of its jurisdiction - Labour Court, Dibrugarh satisfies all the requirements to decide the dispute raised by the respondent before it - Appeal dismissed.

(1) Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation; (2) Suresh Chand Sharma vs (1) Suresh Chand Sharma; (2) State of Uttar Pradesh and another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 26 May 2010]
Labour & Industrial Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Misconduct - Dismissal from service - Legality - Respondent (conductor) was dismissed from service as he was found guilty of mis-conduct as the passengers were found travelling without tickets and they had already paid fare to the respondent - Respondent raised an industrial dispute - Labour Court held that enquiry was held strictly in accordance with law and charges were found duly proved - There was no violation of the principles of natural justice or any other statutory provision - It was held that Disciplinary Authority rightly accepted the enquiry report - Writ petition was filed before HC - HC allowed the writ petition partly and directed the re-instatement of the employee without back wages - Hence, present appeals - (A) Whether HC was justified in setting aside the judgment passed by Labour Court? - Held, while deciding the case, court is under an obligation to record reasons, however brief the same may be, as it is a requirement of principles of natural justice - Non-observance of the said principle would vitiate the judicial order accordingly - Moreover, HC is under an obligation to give not only the reasons but cogent reasons while reversing the findings of fact recorded by a domestic tribunal - In case the judgment and order of the High Court is found not duly supported by reasons, the judgment itself stands vitiated - In the present case, HC dealt with the matter in a most cryptic manner - Judgment and order of the HC liable to be set aside - (B) Punishment of dismissal - Held, in a case of corruption/misappropriation, the only punishment is dismissal - Thus, contention that punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the proved delinquency of the employee, not worth acceptance - Appeals disposed of.
Kallakurichi Taluk Co-Operative Housing Society Limited vs M. Maria Soosai and others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 06 May 2010]
Labour & Industrial Law - Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies' Rules, 1988, r. 149(10)(1) - Reinstatement - Respondent No.1, was appointed as an Accountant in the Appellant Society - From 22-07-1990, he failed to report for duty and was treated to have resigned from service - After a lapse of 5 years, Respondent No.1 raised a dispute before the Labour Court, questioning the decision of the Appellant Society to treat him as having resigned from service since 1990 - While proceedings were pending before the Labour Court, the Society sought permission of the Registrar (Housing) and the Deputy Registrar (Housing), Respondent Nos.2 and 3, to re-appoint the Respondent No.1 on compassionate grounds - Respondent No.2 permitted the Appellant Society to re-appoint the Respondent No.1 - Respondent No. 1 reinstated in service - From 8-01-1996, Respondent No.1 (appointed in an associated society) again failed to report for work - Thereafter, on 24-02-1997, a Resolution was adopted by the Board of Directors of the associated society and respondent No.1 was sent back to his parent society on account of his failure to report for work from 8-01-1996 to 24-2-1997 - Respondent No.1 filed petition for a direction upon the Respondents to issue an order of appointment to him to a suitable post in the Appellant Society and for providing all salaries and other benefits from 2-11-1990 - Said writ petition was dismissed - On appeal, DB directed respondents to reinstate the Respondent No.1 in service with back wages from the date of his dismissal from service till the date of reinstatement together with all attendant benefits - Hence, present appeal - Whether order of DB could be upheld? - Held, No - DB does not appear to have considered that the Respondent No.1 on being reinstated had failed to report for work and hence on account of his failure to report for duties for more than one year the Respondent No.1 was once again deemed to have resigned from the services of the Society u/r. 149(10)(1) of the 1988 Rules - Respondent No.1 was allowed to rejoin his duties in the Appellant Society on 6-12-2007, however again failed to report for work as a result of which he was placed under suspension and a domestic inquiry was conducted - Hence, judgment and order of the DB impugned in this appeal cannot be sustained and must necessarily be set aside - However, having regard to the fact that a domestic inquiry was conducted against the Respondent No.1, in which he was found guilty, no interference with that part of the order impugned directing reinstatement - As far as back wage issue, respondent No.1 will be entitled to full wages only for the period between 6-12-2007 and 15-02-2009 and other connected benefits, if any - Appeal disposed of.
Senior Superintendent, Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal vs Santosh Kumar Seal and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 26 Apr 2010]
Labour & Industrial Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, s. 25F - Reinstatement - Grant of back wages - Legality - Tribunal held that the workmen had worked for more than 240 days in a year for nearly 3 years and that their services were retrenched without following the mandatory provisions of s. 25F of the Act - Tribunal, accordingly, directed the appellant to reinstate the workmen and pay them back wages - Order upheld by HC - Hence, present appeal - Whether relief of reinstatement and back wages granted to workmen justified? - Held, it has been consistently held by SC that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal or is in contravention of the prescribed procedure and that monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in cases of such nature may be appropriate - In the present case, fact that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they worked for 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and instead monetary compensation would subserve the ends of justice - Compensation to each of the workmen shall meet the ends of justice - Order accordingly.
Manager, K. V. S. S. Mandawar and Another vs Mukesh Kumar Sharma  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 25 Mar 2010]
Labour & Industrial Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, s. 33(C)(2) - Back wages on reinstatement - Labour Court ordered reinstatement with full back wages when the service of the respondent was terminated without enquiry and without assigning any reasons - Writ petition filed by the appellant against said order was dismissed - Said order was affirmed by the DB - Hence, present appeal - Whether DB's order could be upheld? - Held, though the respondent was reinstated in service, there is serious dispute between the parties as to whether, the respondent was gainfully re-employed during the period he was out of service - Further it was also stated that the appellant Co-operative Society is not financially sound to meet the claim of full back wages - Hence, appellant Society directed to pay back wages to 50% from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement - Appeal partly allowed
Empire Industries Limited vs State of Maharashtra and others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 17 Mar 2010]
Labour & Industrial Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ss. 10(1), 10(3) and 25N - Prohibition of continuance of lock-out in factory - Legality - Appellant, challenging the order issued by the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of s. 10 of the Act prohibiting continuance of the lock-out in appellant's factory - Lock-out was in connection with three demands (i) relating to the agitational activities of the workmen and the alleged intimidations and acts of violence committed by them, (ii) in respect of the imposition of ceiling on dearness allowance and (iii) with regard to the reduction in the workforce and the retrenchment of a number of workers - Appellant submitted that as long as all the demands leading to the strike or the lock-out were not referred to adjudication u/s. 10(1) of the Act, it was not open to the government to prohibit the strike or the lock-out, as the case may be - Held, s. 25N has a complete scheme for retrenchment of workmen in industrial establishments where the number of workers are in excess of hundred - U/s. 25N the authority to grant or refuse permission for retrenchment is vested in the appropriate government which in present case would be the state government or the authority specified by it - U/s. 10(1) too it is the state government that would make a reference of the industrial dispute - However, two provisions are not comparable - Nature of the power of the state government and its functions under the two provisions are completely different - In making the reference (or declining to make the reference) u/s. 10(1) of the Act the state government acts in an administrative capacity whereas u/s. 25N(3) its power and authority are evidently quasi judicial in nature - A reference u/s. 10(1) of the Act cannot be used to circumvent or bypass the statutory scheme provided u/s. 25N of the Act - In the present case, on the material date there was no dispute on the basis of any demand raised by the appellant in regard to retrenchment of any workers in the factory - Also, any retrenchment of worker(s) can only be effected by following the provisions laid down under the Act and the Rules - Hence, it is not open to the management to make a demand/proposal for retrenchment of workmen and disregarding the provisions of the Act ask the government to refer the demand/dispute u/s. 10(1) to the tribunal for adjudication - Only demand raised by the management regarding imposition of ceiling on dearness allowance was already referred to the Industrial Tribunal - Hence, the appropriate government was fully competent and empowered to issue the impugned order prohibiting closure of the factory - No illegality or infirmity in the closure notice - Appeal dismissed.
Satya Prakash and Others vs State of Bihar and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 16 Mar 2010]
Labour & Industrial Law - Regularization - Appellants who had worked for more than 10 years on daily basis in the Bihar Intermediate Education Council approached the HC for regularization of their services - Appellants claimed benefit of paragraph 53 of the judgment of SC in Secretary, State of Karnataka And Others v. Umadevi (3) And Others 2006 INDLAW SC 125 - Single Judge directed the Council to consider their request for regularization treating them as a separate class after relaxing their age - However, no positive direction was given to the Council for regularization of their services - On appeal, DB held that merely because they had worked as daily waged employees with the Council would not confer any right for regularization as no public appointment was permissible de hors the recruitment rules - Hence, present appeal - Held, in Umadevi's case SC held that the Courts are not expected to issue any direction for absorption/regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees - SC further held that such directions issued could not be said to be inconsistent with the constitutional scheme of public employment and merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules - In view of the law laid down by SC, the directions sought for by the appellants cannot be granted as appellants were never appointed in any sanctioned posts - Appellants were only engaged on daily wages in the Bihar Intermediate Education Council - Appeal disposed of.
Krishan Singh vs Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Rohtak (Haryana)  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 12 Mar 2010]
Labour & Industrial Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ss. 10 and 25F - Constitution of India, 1950, art. 226 and 227 - Termination - Appellant, daily wager's services were terminated - Appellant contended that his services were terminated orally without complying with the mandatory provisions of s. 25F of 1947 Act - Labour Court on reference held that appellant's termination was in violation of s. 25F of the Act and the appellant was entitled to be re-instated in his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice - HC relied on the SC decision in Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and Anr 2007 INDLAW SC 1344, set aside the award of labour court and directed the respondent instead to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant within a period of four month - Hence, present appeal - Whether HC was right in setting aside the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the appellant with 50% back wages and directing instead payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant? - Held, no - Section 11A of the Act clearly provides that where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal it may if it is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct re-instatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require - Wide discretion is, therefore, vested in the Labour Court while adjudicating an industrial dispute relating to discharge or dismissal of a workman and if the Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case to direct re-instatement of a workman with 50% back wages taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, the HC in exercise of its power u/art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with the same, except on well-settled principles laid down by SC - Impugned order set aside - Appeal allowed.
Santuram Yadav and Another vs Secretary, Krishi Upaj M. S. Bemetara and Another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 16 Feb 2010]
Labour & Industrial Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, s. 25F - Termination - Legality - Appellants-workmen apprehending dismissal approached Labour Court - Subsequently, a compromise petition was filed in which management agreed to reinstate the appellants-workmen - Award was passed by Labour Court in terms of the compromise - Later on, appellants-workmen were dismissed from service - Complaints filed before Labour Court were dismissed on the ground of failure to establish that they worked for more than 240 days continuously in one calendar year - On appeal, HC confirmed the order of the Labour Court - Hence, present appeals - Appellants-workmen stated that though they had adequate materials in support of their claim for reinstatement however it was not properly placed before the Labour Court and HC - Appellants-workmen requested SC to consider these documents in order to render substantial justice to them - Held, in view of the peculiar facts of the present case, namely, the stand taken by the management in the form of compromise agreeing to reinstate and provide seniority from the date of their first appointment, materials mentioned cannot be ignored even though the material was not projected before the Labour Court and the HC - Appellants-workmen permitted to place relevant documents before the Labour Court - Order of the Labour Court and HC set aside - Matter remitted to the Labour Court to consider the claim of the workmen afresh - Civil appeals allowed.
Rashida Haroon Kupurade vs Div. Manager, Oriental Ins. Company Limited and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 08 Feb 2010]
Labour & Industrial Law - Insurance - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, ss. 3 and 30(1) - Liability of employer for compensation - Respondent-Insurance company challenged compensation awarded by Commissioner on ground that since deceased workman had died of natural causes, insurance company could not be fastened with the liability of making payment of the said award - HC partly allowed said appeal and held that death having occurred during and in the course of employment, liability could be fastened on the employer and not the insurance company - Leave was, therefore, given to the claimants to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle - Hence, present appeal - Whether HC's order could be upheld? - Held, as per s. 3(1) of Act compensation would be payable by the employer only if the injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment - As in the present case, there is no nexus between the accident and the death of the workman since the accident had occurred six months prior to his death - HC's order set aside - Appeal allowed.
Uttaranchal Pey Jal S. V. A. N. Nigam and Others vs Arvind Garg and Another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 18 Jan 2010]
Ramesh Kumar vs State of Haryana  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 13 Jan 2010]
Labour & Industrial Law - Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, ss. 2(s), 25F - Reinstatement - Entitled to - Appellant/Mali at Chief Minister's residence was terminated without notice or retrenchment compensation - Appellant raised an industrial dispute - Labour Court awarded reinstatement and 50 per cent back wages - Respondent challenged the award before HC - HC set aside the award - Whether the HC was justified in setting aside the award of the Labour Court when the appellant had established that he was in continuous service for a period of 240 days in a calendar year, particularly, when similarly placed workmen were regularized by the Government - Held, since the appellant has completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months, he is a 'workman' u/s. 2(s) of the Act - However, appellant has not been given any notice or pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation at the time of his retrenchment, therefore, s. 25F of the Act is violated - Number of similarly situated persons were reinstated and their services were regularised, however, appellant alone was singled out and discriminated - Labour Court has rightly concluded that appellant's termination is in contravention of s. 25F of the Act - HC ought not to have interfered with the factual finding rendered by the Labour Court and in view of the different treatment to other similarly placed workmen the respondents ought not to have challenged the order of the Labour Court before HC - Therefore, the termination of appellant's service is illegal and hence, impugned order of HC is set aside - Appeal partly allowed.
Ram Kumar vs State of Haryana and Another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 08 Jan 2010]
Harjinder Singh vs Punjab State Warehousing Corporation  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 05 Jan 2010]
Labour & Industrial Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ss. 2(oo) and 25G - Retrenchment - Appellant was employed in the services of the respondent-corporation as work charge Motor Mate - Managing Director of the corporation issued one month's notice for retrenchment of the appellant and 21 other workmen by giving them one month's pay and allowances in lieu of notice as per the requirement of s. 25F(a) of the 1947 Act - Appellant raised an industrial dispute against said order - Labour Court held that even though the appellant was retrenched after complying with s. 25-F of the Act, the principle of equality enshrined in s. 25G of the Act was violated and persons junior to the appellant were allowed to continue in service - Labour Court, therefore, passed award for reinstatement of the appellant with 50% back wages - On appeal, Single Judge agreed with the Labour Court that the action taken by the corporation was contrary to s. 25-G of the Act but substituted the award of reinstatement with 50% back wages by directing that the appellant shall be paid a sum of Rs. 87,582/- by way of compensation - Hence, present appeal - Whether HC's order could be upheld? - Held, no - For attracting the applicability of s. 25- G of the Act, workman required to prove that while effecting retrenchment, the employer violated the rule of 'last come first go' without any tangible reason - In the present case, workman successfully proved that as he was not employed on daily wages and respondent retrench appellant without any tangible reason - Moreover, Single Judge did not find any jurisdictional error in the award of the Labour Court - He also did not find that the award was vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record or that there was violation of rules of natural justice - Impugned order of HC set aside - Labour Court's order restored - Appeal allowed.
Director General, Employees' State Insurance Corporation And Others vs Bharati Banerjee And Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 17 Dec 2009]
(1) Bhuwalka Steel Indus. Limited; (2) Century Textiles and Industries Limited; (3) Steel Re-Rollers Association of Maharashtra; (4) Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha; (5) Raymond Limited; (6) Kalyan Ambernath Manufacturing Association and Others; (7) Valiant Glass Works Private Limited vs (1) Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board and Another; (2) Grocery Markets and Others; (3) Bhuwalka Steel Industries Limited and Others; (4) Cloth Market and Shops Board and Others; (5) State of Maharashtra and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 17 Dec 2009]
Labour & Industrial Law - Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969, ss. 2(11) and 2(12) - Scope of s. 2(11) - Interpretation of term 'Unprotected worker' - Division Bench in Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 2000 INDLAW MUM 202 held that only casual workmen come within purview of Mathadi Act - Full Bench was of the opinion that interpretation given to term 'Unprotected worker' in Century Textiles case was in conflict with statutory provisions enacted by Legislature in Mathadi Act and held that every manual worker engaged or to be engaged in any scheduled employment, irrespective of whether he is protected by other labour legislations or not, would be termed as 'unprotected worker' - Hence, present appeal - Whether expression 'unprotected worker' means a worker not protected by labour legislation or whether expression means a manual worker who is engaged or to be engaged in any scheduled employment as defined in s. 2(11) of Mathadi Act? - Held, definition of term 'worker' is an inclusive definition which includes worker, who is engaged by employer directly or through any agency and it is not necessary that such worker gets wages or not - Therefore, even if such person does not earn wages, a person engaged to do manual work in any scheduled employment, would be a worker - Even though such worker is not employed in the strict sense of the term by an employer or a contractor, but is working with permission or under agreement with employer or contractor, such person would be a 'worker' within meaning of s. 2(12) of Mathadi Act - Therefore, as per language of s. 2(11), every worker, who is doing manual work and is engaged or to be engaged in any scheduled employment, would be covered by that definition and would become an unprotected worker - Full Bench was absolutely correct in coming to conclusions that it did - Appeals dismissed.P />Labour & Industrial Law - Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969, ss. 2(11) and 2(12) - Scope of s. 2(11) - Interpretation of term 'Unprotected worker' - Held where language is clear and admits of no doubts, it is futile to look for meaning of provision on basis of external aids - Definition of 'Unprotected manual workers' is clear and even Preamble of Mathadi Act displays intentions of State Government to make better provision for unprotected manual workers - Merely because some workmen are manual workers and not casual workers, that by itself, would not make any difference - Appeals dismissed.
Bhagyoday Coop. Bank Limited vs Natvarlal K. Patel  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 15 Dec 2009]
Reetu Marbles vs Prabhakant Shukla  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 03 Dec 2009]
Labour & Industrial Law - Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 - Termination - Respondent services were terminated without notice - Appellant contended that respondent was employed only as a part time accountant, therefore reference was not competent - Labour Court held that respondent was removed from service without any notice or retrenchment compensation, which was clearly improper and illegal, therefore, he was entitled to reinstatement - Labour Court further held that appellant was not entitled for back wages for period he did not perform any work - Respondent filed writ petition seeking modification of award of Labour Court as it declines to grant full back wages to respondent - HC modified impugned award and held that respondent shall be entitled to full back wages from date of termination till date of reinstatement - Hence, present appeal - Whether HC was justified in granting full back wages to respondent in spite of denial thereof by Labour Court? - Held, payment of full back wages upon an order of termination being declared illegal cannot be granted mechanically - It does not automatically follow that reinstatement must be accompanied by payment of full back wages even for period when workman remained out of service and contributed little or nothing to industry - Respondent did not place on record any material or evidence to show that he was not gainfully employed during 15 years when he was out of service of appellant - HC unjustified in awarding full back wages - Respondent to paid 50 per cent of back wages from date of termination of service till reinstatement - Appeal allowed.
Mahindra and Mahindra Limited vs Avinash Dhaniramji Kamble  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 03 Dec 2009]
P. W. D. Employees Union And Others vs State Of Gujarat And Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 01 Dec 2009]


Copyright © 1997-2010 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer