Judgment Updates

Judgments (Labour & Industrial Law)

Bank of Maharashtra vs Pandurang Keshav Gorwardkar and others [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 07 May 2013]
Banking & Finance - Labour & Industrial Law - Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, ss. 19(19) - Companies Act, 1956, ss. 529A, 529(1)(c) - Liquidation of company - Recovery officer - Claims adjudicated by Tribunal - Claims of workmen - Pari passu - Writ petition filed by workmen/employees of company praying therein that direction be issued to the Recovery Officer, DRT (Tribunal) to recover the amount of Rs. 3 crores from appellant/bank which was allowed to be withdrawn being the money realised from the sale of movables of the Company and for issuance of further direction to the Recovery Officer to adjudicate the claims/dues of the workmen/employees - After adjudication, in priority over all the claims, release the amount due to them - Workmen/employees also prayed in the writ petition for direction to the Central Govt. to make rules laying down procedure to be followed by the Recovery Officer under 1993 Act - HC allowed the petition - Hence instant appeals - Whether the claims of the workmen who claimed to be entitled to payment pari passu have to be considered by the official liquidator or whether their claims have to be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal was likely to arise in a large number of cases where recoveries were sought to be made pursuant to the certificates issued by Tribunal - Held, if the debtor company was not in liquidation nor any provisional liquidator was appointed and merely winding up proceedings were pending, there was no question of distribution of sale proceeds among secured creditors in the manner prescribed in s. 19(19) of the 1993 Act - Where a company was in liquidation, statutory charge was created in favour of workmen in respect of their dues over the security of every secured creditor and this charge was pari passu with that of the secured creditor - Such statutory charge was to the extent of workmen's portion in relation to the security held by the secured creditor of the debtor company - Pending final disbursement of the proceeds realized from the sale of security in execution of recovery certificate issued by the debt recovery tribunal, if debtor company becomes company in winding up, s. 529A r/w s. 529(1)(c) proviso come into operation and statutory charge was created in favour of workmen in respect of their dues over such proceeds - Relevant date for arriving at the ratio at which the sale proceeds were to be distributed amongst workmen and secured creditors of the debtor company was the date of the winding up order and not the date of sale - Where the sale of security effected in execution of recovery certificate issued by the Tribunal under the 1993 Act, the distribution of sale proceeds had to be made by the Tribunal alone in accordance with s. 529A of the 1956 Act and by no other forum or authority - Workmen of the company in winding up acquire the standing of the secured creditors on and from the date of winding up order (or where provisional liquidator has been appointed, from the date of such appointment) and they become entitled to the distribution of sale proceeds in the ratio as explained in the illustration appended to s. 529(3)(c) of the 1956 Act - S. 19(19) of the 1993 Act did not clothe Tribunal with jurisdiction to determine the workmen's claim against the debtor company - Adjudication of workmen's dues against the debtor company in liquidation had to be made by the liquidator - S. 19 (19) of the Act would attracted only where a debtor company was in winding up or a provisional liquidator was appointed in respect of such company - If the debtor company was not in liquidation or if in respect of such company no order of appointment of provisional liquidator was made and merely winding up proceedings were pending, the question of distribution of sale proceeds among secured creditors in the manner prescribed in s. 19(19) of the 1993 Act did not arise - Claims of the workmen who claim to be entitled to payment pari passu had to be considered and adjudicated by the liquidator of Debtor Company and not by the Tribunal - Impugned judgment was set aside - Appeals allowed.

(1) S. Sivaguru; (2) R. Arulraj; (3) K. Krishnamurthy; (4) K. V. Srinivasan; (5) B. Kumar; (6) Government of Tamil Nadu and another; (7) State of Tamil Nadu and another;(8) Secretary to Government Health and Family Welfare and another; (9) J. Murthy; (10) K. Selvan and others; (11) T. Rajaraman; (12) K. Jagannathan and others; (13) M. Padmanaban and another vs (1) State of Tamil Nadu and others; (2) K. Jagannathan and others; (3) C. Selvaraj and others; (4) Narasimhalu and others; (5) S. Syed Ibrahim and others; (6) Venkatramanan and others; (7) Narasimhalu and others; (8) M. Padmanaban and others; (9) S. Sivaguru; (10) O. M. Duraisamy and others; (11) Government of Tamil Nadu and others; (12) Girija Vaidyanathan and another [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 07 May 2013]

Sohan Lal vs State of Haryana and others [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 01 May 2013]
Labour & Industrial Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, s. 10 (1) - Medical unfitness - Termination of services - Sustainability - It was case of appellant/driver that, while in service, he sustained certain injuries as a result of a road accident - Medical examination of appellant was conducted to determine fitness of appellant to continue to be employed as driver - Appellant was found to be unfit to discharge his duties - Respondent/General Manager issued notice on 3-3-1997 to appellant proposing him to retire him from service on medical grounds - Appellant was retired from service w.e.f.31.03.1997 on ground of medical unfitness - Appellant raised an industrial dispute on issue of his termination/retirement made by order dt.27-3-1997 - Labour Court held that claim of workman was not tenable and observed fact that in order dt.27-3-1997, it was mentioned that before dispensing with services of workman, attempts were made to find alternative job to accommodate him which attempts, however, did not yield any positive result - Aggrieved by award, appellant filed writ petition before HC - HC dismissed the same - Hence instant appeal - Whether orders passed by Court below were justified - Held, order dt.27-3-1997 by which service of appellant was dispensed with recites that no alternative employment was available under Roadways commensurate with qualifications and skills of appellant - Appellant could not also be appointed in workshop as he did not have any technical qualification - In said order it was also recited that additional compensation, as prescribed by Memorandum dt.20-8-1992, was calculated and was being paid to appellant - There was no dispute that such compensation was since paid - Applicability of provisions of s. 47 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995 to the case of appellant, as strenuously urged on his behalf, could not arise in as much as appellant did not come within meaning of expression 'person with disability' as defined u/s. 2(t) of the Act -Further, appellant was found to be medically unfit to continue to work as a driver - His case for alternative employment in terms of Memorandum dt.20-8-1992 was duly considered - No such alternative employment was available - Consequently, additional compensation payable to appellant in terms of said Memorandum was calculated and paid - Further, superannuation of appellant, if he had continued in service, was due on 30-9-2004 - Taking into account totality of facts of instant case, SC was of view that award of Labour Court affirmed by HC by its order would not require any interference - Appeal dismissed.

Bajaj Auto Limited vs Rajendra Kumar Jagannath Kathar and others [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 04 Apr 2013]
Labour & Industrial Law - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Unfair labour practice - Compensation - Calculation of salary - Entitlement - Respondents, who were employees in appellant company initiated an action against appellant u/s. 28 of the Act, before the Industrial Court, seeking a declaration that there was unfair labour practices under items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the 1971 Act - Complaints were filed against appellant in the year 1997 to 2003 at later stage - Industrial Court allowed the petitions and directed appellant to pay lump sum amount to respondents - Aggrieved appellant preferred writ petitions and was dismissed by Single Judge - Appeal preferred before DB was also dismissed - Whether the evidence adduced in ULP No. 192 of 1997 could have been taken into consideration - Held, complainants were silent spectators when the earlier group of cases was tried and the matter travelled to SC - It was also observed that there were certain cases which were filed at a later stage - DB also considered that the filing of complaints range from 1997-2003 - Regard being had to the totality of circumstances, SC inclined to modify the amount of reasonable compensation which was granted by the Industrial Court - Appellant was directed to pay lump sum amount calculated at 65 days salary, inclusive of all allowances for the number of year each complainant has actually worked irrespective of the days a complainant might have put in in a year - Calculation would be made on the basis of work during a calendar year and that the calendar year in which complainant might not have worked at all would be kept out of consideration while calculating the amount - In calculating the salary that would be taken into account would be Rs.8,000/- p.m. subject to condition that if on the date of termination, the salary of any particular complainant was more, than the calculation would be made on the actual last drawn salary - Calculation in the above manner would be made for the period up to date of terminations in 1997 - For the period after termination till date of this judgment, the basis of calculation would be lump sum two years of service on the basis aforesaid, viz. 65 days for each year i.e. 130 days - Appeals disposed of.

Baleshwar Rajbanshi and others vs BD. of Trustees for Port Trust of Calcutta and others [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 02 Apr 2013]
Labour & Industrial Law - Administrative - Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, ss. 10, s. 10(1), 10(2), 3 and 5 - Prohibition of contract labour employment - Notification - Validity - Central Govt. issued notice dt.7-7-2005 u/s. 10(1) of the Act - Notification was issued after due consultation with Central Advisory Central Labour Board with regard to conditions of work and benefits provided for contract labour and other relevant factors enumerated in s. 10(2) of the Act and it prohibited employment of contract labour 'in works of sleeper renewal of railway Tracks, repairing, restoration and laying and linkage of tracks in establishment of respondent - Aggrieved, appellants filed writ petition before HC - Appellants sought direction from HC to abolish system of giving works covered by notification to contractors - Respondent also approached HC, questioning validity of notification - Single Judge upheld the validity of notification and dismissed the writ petition filed by respondent - Respondent field appeal before DB, which was allowed to assign work of laying and linking of railway tracks as one time measure to RITES, another Central Govt. organization - Hence, instant appeal - Whether DB was justified in passing the impugned order - Held, notification was issued after following a statutory scheme and it was based on a detailed investigation of issues of facts followed by 2 tiers of recommendations, first by committee constituted u/s. 5 of the Act and second by Advisory Board constituted u/s. 3 of the Act - It was, quite wrong for DB of HC to completely nullify that part of notification in a highly casual and off-hand manner and simply on ipse dixit of respondent - DB did not otherwise find any illegality in notification - DB to carve out exception and to rationalize assignment of contract to RITES merely on ground that it was another Central Govt. organization - DB was not justified in passing the impugned order - DB order was set aside - Appeal allowed.

Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Dyamavva and others [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 05 Feb 2013]
Carriers & Transportation - Insurance - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ss. 166, 167 - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, 8,10 - Compensation Claim - Workmens Compensation - Award - Sustainability - Respondents-Claim petitioners, dependents of deceased who died in accident being hit by tipper during his course of second shift sought compensation on account of motor accident of deceased and Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 11,44,440/- deducting an amount of Rs 3,26,140/- which had been disbursed to claimants by Workmen's Compensation Commission - Award was challenged by appellants before HC, which was affirmed - Hence instant appeal - Appellants contended that respondents had been awarded compensation under Act, 1923 as such they were precluded from raising claim compensation under 1988, Act - Whether acceptance of aforesaid compensation would amount to claimants having exercised their option, to seek compensation under the 1923, Act - Held, procedure u/s. 8 was initiated at behest of employer "suo motu", and as such, could not be considered as an exercise of option by dependents /claimants to seek compensation under provisions of 1923, Act, position would had been otherwise, if dependents had raised a claim for compensation u/s. 10 of 1923, Act, certainly compensation would be paid to dependents at instance of claimants - If claimants had moved an application u/s. 10 of 1923 Act, they would have been deemed to have exercised their option to seek compensation under provisions of 1923, Act, suffice it to state that no such application was ever filed by respondents-claimants herein u/s. 10, it could be stated that respondents-claimants having never exercised their option to seek compensation u/s. 10 of 1923, Act, could not be deemed to be precluded from seeking compensation u/s. 166 of 1988, Act - HC in awarding compensation quantified at Rs.11,44,440/- to claimant and a deduction therefrom of a sum of Rs.3,26,140/- gives full effect to s. 167 of Act 1988, inasmuch as, it awards compensation to respondents-claimants under enactment based on option first exercised, and also ensures that, respondents-claimants were not allowed dual benefit under two enactments - Appeal dismissed.

Rajkumar S/o Rohitlal Mishra vs Jalagaon Municipal Corporation [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 01 Feb 2013]
Labour & Industrial Law - Termination - Reinstatement - Denied - Challenged - Appellants were employed with respondent (Corporation) on daily wages or on temporary basis - Appellants were terminated from service - Aggrieved appellants approached Labour Court, which passed an Award holding that termination was illegal and directed for reinstatement of appellants - Aggrieved respondent filed petitions before HC - Single Judge, quashed Award and directed respondent to pay compensation to appellants - Aggrieved appellants filed appeals before DB, which were dismissed - Hence, instant appeals - Whether appellants were entitled to reinstatement - Held, concurrent finding recorded by Single Judge and DB in appeals that appellants were temporarily appointed on daily wages as and when work was available and they were not posted on regular basis against sanctioned post - Thus, there was no reason and justification to interfere with impugned judgments passed by HC - Appellants who approached for conciliation after 8 to 10 years from date of termination were entitled to Rs.50,000/-, whereas appellant who approached Conciliation Officer within 2 to 3 years should be entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation - Impugned judgment passed by Single Judge was modified - Appeals disposed of.

Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corporation and another vs Gitam Singh [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 31 Jan 2013]
Labour & Industrial Law - Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ss. 25F,25G,6N - Constitution of India, 1950, arts. 14,16 - Daily Wage - Termination - Violation of Provisions - Reinstatement - Sustainability - Respondent worked as technician (Mistri) under appellant for 240 days for period from 1-3-1991 to 31-10-1991 and his services were terminated by an oral order dt. 31-10-1991 - Respondent aggrieved by order of termination approached Labour Court and filed application contending that his termination was in violation of s. 25-F of Act - Labour court allowed petition and ordered for reinstatement of respondent with continuity of service and 25% back wages - Appellant challenged before HC and DB, but same was dismissed - Hence instant appeal - Appellant challenged finding of Labour Court that respondent had worked for 240 days continuously in year preceding date of termination and that award of reinstatement with continuity of service and 25 per cent back wages in facts of case was unjustified as respondent was only a daily wager and he had worked for a very short period from 1-3-1991 to 31-10-1991 and for last more than 20 years he was not in service due to interim orders - Respondent-workman, contended that reinstatement must follow where termination of a workman had been found to be in breach of Section 25-F of Act - Whether direction to employer for reinstatement with continuity of service and 25 per cent back wages was legally sustainable - Held, SC, in a catena of decisions had clearly laid down that although an order of retrenchment passed in violation of s. 25-F of Act may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not be passed and had distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee - In light of legal position and having regard to facts of case, workman was engaged as daily wager on 1-03-1991 and he worked hardly for eight months from 1-03-1991 to 31-10-1991, Labour Court failed to exercise its judicial discretion and it suffers from serious infirmity - Single Judge as well as DB also erred in not considering above aspect at all - Appeal partly allowed.

Atlas Cycle Haryana Limited vs Kitab Singh [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 24 Jan 2013]
Labour & Industrial Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, s. 25F - Voluntary retirement - Forcible resignation - Compensation - Rejected - Sustainability - Respondent herein was employed by the appellant-Company on piece rate basis in the Packing Department and was charge-sheeted for committing theft, but when he sought pardon and assured not to indulge in future appellant accepted - Respondent wrote letter to Chief Minister alleging that management of appellant forcible acquired resignation letter, latter respondent issued notice to appellant and demanded for compensation u/s. 25F of Act and that he should be reinstated with continuity of service - State Govt. rejected his request for reference - Aggrieved respondent filed writ petition before HC, praying for referring dispute to Labour Court, which was allowed - Respondent filed claim statement before Labour Court, alleging that he did not resign and prayed that he should be reinstated on duty with continuity of service and back wages - Appellant pleaded that respondent is not entitled for relief sought as he voluntarily resigned from service - Labour Court dismissed reference and claim statement of respondent - Aggrieved respondent preferred petition before HC, Single Judge set aside award of labour court and directed appellant to reinstate respondent in service with 25% back wages - Appellant preferred LPA before DB, which was dismissed - Hence instant appeal - Held, workman had specifically alleged that on 1-10-1992, he sent a notice-cum-application to Management and a news item to this effect was duly published in a vernacular local daily, has not been denied by Management - Court further noticed contradictory findings by Labour Court with regard to claim of workman that he was tortured by Management on 30-09-1992 and was made to write resignation letter on 01-10-1992, again, it was rightly observed by DB that certain relevant facts such as workman had been in service since 1977 and in such circumstance whether there was any need to resign without any acceptable reason that too without any monetary incentive and complaint on same day to Management and higher authorities including Chief Minister, were not at all considered by Labour Court and merely accepted that workman tendered resignation in his own writing - Materials placed and stand taken by workman and Management, SC was satisfied that single Judge was fully justified in interfering with conclusion arrived at by Labour Court which had been rightly affirmed by DB - Appeal dismissed

Param Pal Singh through Father vs National Insurance Company and another [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 14 Dec 2012]
Insurance - Labour & Industrial Law - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, s. 4(4) - Death - Compensation - Sustainability - Deceased (father who adopted appellant) died during performing his duty - Appellant filed an application before Commissioner contending that death of deceased was in course of his employment with trade and business of respondent no. 2 and claimed compensation with interest @ 12% p.a from date of accident till realization - Commissioner determined compensation payable to appellant a sum of Rs.2,20,280/- along with another sum of Rs.2500/- as funeral charges u/s. 4(4) of the Act - Further, Commissioner issued show-cause-notice to respondents for payment of interest and penalty - On appeal, HC held that death of deceased was due to natural causes and it had no CAUSAL CONNECTION with his employment and also held that adoption of appellant was not proved - Hence, instant appeal - Whether death of deceased was in an accident arising out of and in course of his employment with respondent no. 2 - Held, there was CAUSAL CONNECTION to death of deceased with that of his employment as a truck driver - Further, there was no scope that deceased was simply travelling in vehicle and that there was no obligation for him to undertake work of driving - On the other hand, evidence proved fact that deceased was actually driving truck and that in course of such driving activity as he felt uncomfortable he safely parked vehicle on side of road near a hotel soon where after he breathed his last -Such an 'untoward mishap' could therefore be reasonably described as an 'accident' as having been caused solely attributable to the nature of employment indulged in with his employer which was in course of such employer's trade or business - Therefore, Order of Commissioner that death of deceased was in an accident arising out of and in course of his employment with respondent no. 2 was justified and was restored - Thus, impugned judgment of HC was set aside - Appeal allowed.

Public Union for Civil Liberties vs State of Tamil Nadu and others [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 15 Oct 2012]
Human Rights - Women & Children - Labour & Industrial Law - Constitution - Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, s. 10 to 13 - Minimum Wage Act, 1948 - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Bonded Labourers - Abolition of - Directions - Petitioner (union for civil liberties) filed instant petition u/art. 32 of Constitution for directions against exploitation of labourers by employers in the country and to identify and check the practice of bonded labour in country and to rehabilitate those who were victims of such practice - However SC by interim order dt.13-5-1994 in the light of art. 23 of Constitution, issued directions to Govt. of all States to identify the bonded labourers, employers exploiting the bounded labourers and to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against such exploitation and to ensure setting up of a vigilance committees in each district and to provide steps for rehabilitation of bonded labourers and to initiate criminal proceedings against contractors/employers who engaged bounded labour and employ children below the age of 14 years without adequate monetary compensation by paying wages below minimum wage rate, as per 1948 Act - National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) was entrusted with responsibility of monitoring and overseeing the implementation of directions and provisions of 1976 Act in all States and Union Territories (UTs) by order dt.11-5-1997 - Thereafter, NHRC directed to Govt. of all States and UTs that they should constitute Vigilance Committees at district and sub-divisional levels in accordance with s. 13 of 1976 Act and should make proper arrangements for rehabilitating released bonded labourers and such rehabilitation could be on land-based basis or non-land basis or skilled/craft-based basis depending upon choice of bonded labourer and his/her inclination and past experience, if not, should identify 2 NGOs with basic facilities for rehabilitating released bonded labourers - Thereafter, NHR by its report dt.10-8-2009 highlighted remedial steps to be taken for eradication of bonded labour and child labour in country - NHRC stated that its officials conducted detailed reviews on the status of implementation of 1976 Act in various States/UTs - Said report stated that those reviews were forwarded by NHRC to respective States/UTs for necessary follow up action, and they were required to submit action taken report (ATR) to NHRC - NHRC in its report stated that even though guidelines on methodology of identification of bonded labourers formulated Chairman of Expert Group constituted in year 2001-02 was circulated to all States/UTs but there was no evidence on the ground of them being adopted and implemented - Thereafter, UOI filed affidavit, which revealed that, in majority of States, no surveys were conducted after year 2002-2003and it was stated that only a handful of States have conducted surveys in subsequent years - Then SC passed order dt.25-4-2011 directing few States to explain what steps they have taken to implement the provisions of 1976 Act and on 26-8-2011 directed those States to submit their Accounts to Ministry of Labour, GOI with regard to disbursement of amounts by Central Govt. for survey and rehabilitation of bonded labour - On 30-6-2011, in all 2780 cases involving about 1 lakh bonded labourers were registered in NHRC and presently 841 cases were under consideration of NHRC - NHRC sought direction so that concerned States would take steps for reporting compliance to NHRC - Thus, fresh surveys be conducted once in 3 years in all States/UTs for compliance of 1976 Act and submit report to NHRC - Vigilance Committees were directed to give more attention to area of brick kilns, stone quarries, crushing mines, beedi manufacturing, carpet weaving, construction industries, agriculture, rural and urban unorganized and informal sector, power looms and cotton handlooms, fish processing etc., and to take prompt action in case of violation was noticed - Local bodies and Panchayats were directed to identify children who were working as domestic help in urban and rural areas, with no chance to go to school, as compulsory under 2009 Act and ensure that such children to get proper education - All States/UTs should calculate firm requirements of fund for rehabilitation of freed bonded labourers and steps be taken to enhance rehabilitation package from present limit - District Magistrates were directed to effectively implement ss. 10, 11 and 12 of 1976 Act - States were directed to ensure compliance with orders passed by NHRC as highlighted in revised report - NHRC was directed to effectively monitor and implement provisions of 1976 Act - If States/UTs were not implementing the directions given by SC, NHRC was free to move SC for further orders - Petition disposed of.

Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Siby George and others [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 31 Jul 2012]
Labour & Industrial Law - Compensation - Time - Entitlement of - Commissioner directed for payment of simple interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of the accident - Appellant's appeal against the order of the Commissioner was dismissed by HC as barred by limitation - Against the order of the HC appellant filed the special leave petition (giving rise to instant appeal) in which notice was issued 'limited to the interest' - When does the payment of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 become due and consequently what is the point in time from which interest would be payable on the amount of compensation as provided u/s. 4-A (3) of the Act - Held, neither the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed and Anr. 2007 Indlaw SC 79, nor the one in Insurance Company Limited v. Mohd. Nasir and Anr. 2009 Indlaw SC 784, could be said to provide any valid guidelines because both the decisions were rendered in ignorance of earlier larger Bench decisions of instant Court by which the issue was concluded - As early as in 1975 a four Judge Bench of instant Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo. v. Shrinivas Sabata and Anr., 1975 Indlaw SC 166 directly answered the question - In light of the decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Kerala State Electricity Board v. Valsala K., 1999 Indlaw SC 717, it was not open to contend that the payment of compensation would fall due only after the Commissioner's order or with reference to the date on which the claim application was made - Decisions in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir above said insofar as they took a contrary view to the earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala did not express the correct view and did not make binding precedents - Appeal dismissed.

Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs M. G. Vittal Rao [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 18 Nov 2011]
Labour & Industrial Law - Criminal - Practice & Procedure - Constitution of India, 1950 art 311(2)(b) - Domestic Enquiry - Award - Dismissal - Termination - Respondent employee working as helper was charge-sheeted for staying beyond his duty hours at place of employment and opened door of blacksmith section with aid of duplicate key and pulled gas cylinder trolley and equipment's to cash room cut opened cash room and committed theft from cash chest along with 4 other employees - Divisional Traffic Officer was appointed as enquiry officer by Disciplinary Authority to enquiry into charges levelled against respondent - Enquire officer held that sufficient evidence was produced to prove the charges of respondent and holding respondent guilty awarded for dismissal - Respondent filed Writ Petition before HC - Single Judge modified dismissal order into order of termination and further held that respondent was entitled for wages or other monetary benefits till date of termination - Aggrieved by orders respondent filed Writ appeal before DB - DB quashed the award of Labour Court and reversed order of Single Judge and held that respondent was entitled to be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits - Hence instant appeal - Appellant contended that standard of proof in domestic enquiry and criminal proceedings are different and mere acquittal by Criminal Court does not entitle delinquent for exonerating in disciplinary proceedings - Respondent contended that as workman has been acquitted in criminal proceedings, order of dismissal as a consequence of domestic enquiry deserves to be set aside - Whether disciplinary proceedings can be held at time when delinquent employee is facing criminal trial - Held, that disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish guilty but to keep administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements - In criminal law, burden of proof is on prosecution and unless prosecution is able to prove guilt of accused 'beyond reasonable doubt', he cannot be convicted by a Court of law - In departmental enquiry, penalty is imposed on delinquent officer on a finding recorded on basis of 'preponderance of probability' - Since facts and evidence in both proceedings were same without there being any iota of difference, distinction, on basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable to instant case - Domestic enquiry found delinquent employee guilty of all charges, enquiry report was accepted and no grievance on behalf of respondent-workman that statutory provisions/principles of natural justice have not been observed while conducting enquiry, Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of dismissal from service which cannot be held to be disproportionate or non-commensurate to delinquency - Hence, respondent entitled only to relief granted by writ court and judgment and order of court in writ appeal is set aside - Appeal disposed of.

Sunil Kr. Ghosh and others vs K. Ram Chandran and others [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 18 Nov 2011]
Labour & Industrial Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ss. 12(4), 12(5) - Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) - Cancellation - Non-payment of retrench benefits - Legality - Respondent company introduced VRS for its workmen and majority of them opted for and accepted the same - Respondent company entered into an agreement for sale with another company for selling its factory - Respondent company withdrew the VRS - Appellant workers raised industrial dispute - Appellants petitioned to HC for early disposal of their application for reference - HC directed the Labour Commissioner to passé necessary order in terms of ss. 12(4) or 12(5) of the Act - Appropriate government refused to refer the dispute holding that the interests of the workmen were in no way affected due to transfer of ownership - Appellants challenged the order of appropriate government before the HC - Single Judge, by order dated 8-10-2001, directed the respondent to pay retirement/retrenchment benefits to workers - Appellant filed Contempt Application alleging violation of the order dated 8-10-2001 that was dismissed by Single Judge - Appellants' appeal thereafter was dismissed by DB - Whether the workmen were entitled to the benefit of the order dated 8-10-2001 passed by the Single Judge, particularly, in the absence of any appeal or challenge before the higher forum by the respondent - Held, without consent of the workmen, they should not be forced to work under different management and in that event, those workmen were entitled to retirement/retrenchment compensation in terms of the Act - Hence, appellant workmen were entitled to the benefit of Single Judge direction and it was the obligation on the part of the respondent company to comply with the same - Single Judge was conscious of the fact that appellant workmen failed to avail the VRS within the stipulated time and also did not retire from the service - However, taking note of the fact that the workmen should not be compelled to join the transferee company against their wish and without their consent and all along fighting for their cause in various forums such as Civil Court, Labour Court, the Government and the HC and even in SC, thus Single Judge was fully justified in passing such order - Order dated 8-10-2001 left no room for doubt that a mandatory duty was cast upon respondent to comply with the same - In such circumstances, it was highly improper on the part of the respondent now to turn around and to contend that since the appellants had neither been retired nor resigned nor retrenched from service, as such, there was no question of any payment or to comply with the directions passed by the Single Judge - Order dated 8-10-2001 was passed by the Single Judge after hearing all the parties in the nature of mandatory directions to respondents - DB, in the impugned order, instead of dismissing the contempt application ought to have directed the respondents to implement the order dated 8-10-2001 passed by the Single Judge - Hence, direction issued to the respondent to comply with the directions made by the Single Judge vide order dated 8-10-2001 - Appeals allowed.

Employees Provident Fund Commissioner vs O. L. of Esskay Pharmaceuticals Limited [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 08 Nov 2011]
Corporate - Labour & Industrial Law - Practice & Procedure - Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 s. 11 - Companies Act, 1956 s. 529A - Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Provident Fund Due - Penalty - Validity - Respondent was pharmaceuticals company registered under the 1956 Act - Appellant-commissioner passed two orders u/s. 7A of the 1952 Act and held that respondent was liable to pay due to Employee Provident Fund (EPF) - Inspite of demand notice by appellant, respondent paid half of the due amount - Appellant passed an order u/s. 8F of the 1952 Act to the bankers of respondent and issued a sale notice for attachment of respondent's property - Appellant approached Official Liquidator for payment of amount determined u/s. 7A of the 1952 Act, but latter did not responded - Appellant filed company application for issue of direction to Official Liquidator to pay the amount under the 1952 Act, which was dismissed by Company Judge - Appellant filed an appeal before DB challenging order of Company Judge that amount due from appellant was first charge on the assets of respondents and was payable on priority to all other dues - DB dismissed appeal and held, Company Judge did not commit any error by dismissing the application filed by appellant - Hence, instant appeal - Whether priority given to the dues payable by respondent u/s. 11 of the 1952 Act was subject to s. 529A of the 1956 Act, on terms of which respondent's dues and debts due to appellants were required to be paid on priority to all other debts - Held, s. 529-A of the 1956 Act contained non obstante clause but in construing the provisions thereof, it was necessary to determine the purport and object for which the same was enacted - It was only to bring workmen's dues pari passu with secured creditors, that s. 529-A was enacted - Further, it should not lead to the conclusion that concept of inter se priorities amongst secured creditors had thereby been intended to be given a total go-by - The words 'all other debts' used in s. 11(2) of 1952 Act should necessarily include debts due to secured creditors like banks, financial institutions etc. - Thus, effect of amendment made on the 1956 Act was only to expand scope of the dues of workmen and place them at par with the debts due to secured creditors and there was no reason to interpret this amendment as giving priority to the debts due to secured creditor over dues of provident fund payable by an employer - Further, after the amount due from an employer under the 1952 Act was paid, other dues of workers should be treated at par with the debts due to secured creditors and payment thereof will be regulated u/s. 529(1) r/w ss. 529(3), 529A and 530 of the 1956 Act - Interpretation of s. 11 of the 1952 Act and ss. 529, 529A and 530 of the 1956 Act, judgment of DB, which turned on interpretation of s. 94 of the 1948 Act and ss. 529A and 530 of the 1956 Act on which reliance was placed by Company Judge and DB while dismissing applications filed by appellant, cannot be treated as laying down the correct law - Impugned order of Company Judge was set aside - Appeals allowed.

Siemens Limited and another vs Siemens Employees Union and another [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 12 Oct 2011]
Labour & Industrial Law - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, s. 28 - Unfair labour practice - Proof of - Appellant company issued a notification inviting applications from workmen for selection process to undergo a two year long period as an Officer Trainee - Notification stated that after the successful completion of the said two years, the trainees were to be designated as Junior Executive Officers - 1st respondent trade union filed a complaint u/s. 28 of the Act for unfair labour practices challenging the notification on the ground that though the designation of Junior Executive Officer was that of an officer belonging to the management cadre, in fact it was merely a nomenclature, with negligible content of managerial work - Labour Court allowed the complaint holding that the nature of work to be performed by Officer's Trainee, showed that there was breach of cl. 7 of the Settlement entered into between the parties and as such, 1st respondent had succeeded to prove the unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act - Appellant challenged the Labour Court order before the HC - Single Judge dismissed appellant's writ petition - Appellant's appeal before the DB also dismissed thereafter - Whether the appellant management had practiced any unfair labour practices in its organization - Held, management of the company was not prevented from rearranging its business in the manner it considered best, if in the process it did not indulge in victimisation - In the instant case no allegation of victimization had been made by the respondent-union in its complaint - In the absence of any allegation of victimization it was rather difficult to find out a case of unfair labour practice against the management in the context of the allegations in the complaint - It was nobody's case that the management was punishing any workmen in any manner - Further, no workmen of the appellant-company had made any complaint either to the management or to the union that the management was indulging in any act of unfair labour practice - Both the Labour Court and the HC failed to take into consideration that the workers voluntarily applied for the promotion scheme pursuant to its introduction - Nowhere had the Labour Court or HC been alleged by the workers that any force or pressure was brought upon them to apply - In the instant case no malafide had been alleged against the appellant-company - Nor it was anybody's case that as a result of reorganization of its working pattern by introducing the scheme of promotion any person was either retrenched or was rendered surplus - Hence impugned HC order was set aside - Appeal allowed.

L. N. Gadodia and Sons and another vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 26 Sep 2011]
Labour & Industrial Law - Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, s. 7A - Coverage of the Act - Clubbing of two sister concerns - Justifiability - Respondent Provident Fund (PF) authority clubbed petitioner sister concerns together for the purpose of coverage under the Act and called upon to comply with the provisions thereof - Petitioner filed application before the Regional PF Commissioner disputing respondent's action of clubbing petitioner concerns together - Regional PF Commissioner held that petitioner concerns belonged to one establishment and they had to be clubbed together for the purposes of application of the Act - Petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal - Appellate Tribunal allowed appeal - Respondent challenged the order of Appellate Tribunal before the HC - Single Judge set aside the order of Appellate Tribunal holding that there was a proximity of two units and a common management and hence there was no error in the order passed by the Regional PF Commissioner - Petitioner's appeal before the DB was dismissed thereafter - Whether the respondent had erred in clubbing the two petitioner concerns for the purposes of applying the provisions of the Act - Held, Directors of the two petitioner companies belonged to the same family and their Managing Director was common - Two senior officers i.e., Commercial Manager and Technical Manager were common - At the time of inspection, the Enforcement Officer noticed that the employees of the two companies were being swapped - Both the petitioners had same registered address and common telephone numbers and a common gram number - Audited accounts revealed that the second petitioner company had given a loan of Rs. 5 lakhs to the first petitioner in the year 1988 - Hence, in the facts of the instant case, there was an integrity of management, finance and the workforce in the two private limited companies - Two companies had seen to it that on record each of the two entities engaged less than twenty employees, although the number of employees engaged by them was more than twenty when taken together - Entire attempt of the petitioners was to show that the two entities were separate units so that the Act did not get attracted - Material on record however, led to only one pointer that the two entities were parts of the same establishment and in which case they get covered under the Act - Further, petitioners had full opportunity to explain their position in the inquiry before the PF Commissioner conducted u/s. 7A of the Act - Petitioners, however, confined themselves only to a facile explanation - If according to petitioners, the management, workforce and financial affairs of the two companies were genuinely independent, they ought to have led the necessary evidence, since they would be in the best know of it - Regional PF Commissioner was, therefore, entirely justified in taking the view that on the facts and law, the two petitioners had to be clubbed together for the purposes of their coverage under the Act - Appellate Tribunal clearly erred in re-appreciating the facts on record and applying wrong propositions of law thereto - Single Judge was therefore required to set-aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal in view of his conclusion that the order was contrary to the facts and the law, and was perverse - DB had rightly confirmed the order passed by the Single Judge - Petition dismissed.

(1) Delhi International Airport Private Limited; (2) Airport Authority of India vs (1) Union of India and others; (2) Indira Gandhi Airport TDI Karamchari Union and others [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 15 Sep 2011]
Labour & Industrial Law - Air law - Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, ss. 2(1)(c), 10(1) - Airport authority of India Act, 1994, s.12A, 12(2) - International Airports Authority of India Act, 1971 - National Airports Authority Act, 1985 - Contract Labour - Applicability - 136 workers were employed by contractor to do work of trolley retrieving at Domestic and at International Airport -In view of perennial nature of work, workmen approached Trial Court for abolition of contract labour system and for their absorption as regular employees - AAI came into force merging the 1971 Act, and the 1985 Act, - Central Govt. accepted recommendations of Trial Court and issued notification abolishing contract labour system - HC disposed of both writ petitions along with LPAs by impugned judgment - Hence, instant appeal - Whether Notification issued by central Govt. u/s. 10(1) of the 1970 Act prohibited employment of contract labour of trolley retrievals in establishment of Airport Authority of India at International Airport and Domestic Airport would be applicable to International Airport Private Limited or not - Held, instant case directing DIAL to regularize services of trolley retrievers who worked with DIAL till 2003 would be harsh, unrealistic and not a pragmatic approach, therefore, in interest of justice, we deem it proper to direct DIAL to pay Rupees five lacs to each of erstwhile 136 workers of DIAL who were working for them as trolley retrievers and in case any worker had expired, then his or her legal heirs would be entitled to said amount - This compensation was paid to workers in lieu of their permanent absorption/reinstatement with DIAL and their claim of back wages - This was in full and final settlement of entire claims of erstwhile 136 workers of DIAL - Court directed DIAL to pay amount to these 136 erstwhile workers of DIAL within three months after proper verification - In case amount as directed was not paid within prescribed period then it would carry interest at rate of 12% per month from that point till amount was paid - Appeals disposed of.

(1) Marathwada Gramin Bank Karamchari Sanghatana and another; (2) Marathwada Regional Rural Bank Employees Union vs Management of Marathwada Gramin Bank and others [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 09 Sep 2011]
Labour & Industrial Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 - Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, s. 17(3)(b) - Employees Provident Fund (EPF) - Contribution in excess of statutory limit - Obligation - Respondent bank formed its own trust and framed its own Scheme for payment of PF to its employee - Regional PF Commissioner exempted the respondent bank from complying with the statutory provisions of the 1952 Scheme - Exemption granted to the respondent bank was withdrawn subsequently and cancelled and the respondent bank was directed to implement the provisions of the statutory Scheme - Despite cancellation of exemption, the respondent bank continued to make payment of PF in accordance with the earlier Scheme which was in excess of statutory obligation - Respondent bank issued a notice of change u/s. 9A of the Act expressing its intention to discontinue payment of PF in excess of its statutory liability but would continue to contribute towards PF according to the statutory liability - Regional PF Commissioner issued a letter informing the respondent bank that it cannot withdraw the benefit of paying matching employer's share without any limit to wage ceiling and directed it to continue extending the same benefit - Central Government made a reference of the dispute to Industrial Tribunal - Tribunal held that the management could not reduce, directly or indirectly, the wages of any employee to whom the Scheme applied or the total quantum of benefits in the nature of old age pension gratuity (provident fund) or life insurance to which the employee was entitled under the terms of his employment, express or implied - Respondent challenged the Tribunal order before the HC - Single Judge held that the respondent bank was not required any permission from the Central Government u/s. 17(3)(b) of the 1952 Act to reduce the contribution and the respondent had no obligation to pay in excess of statutory limit - Appellant employees association challenged the Single Judge order before DB - DB dismissed appeal - Whether the respondent bank was under an obligation to contribute in excess of statutory limit laid down by the 1952 Act - Held, respondent bank was under an obligation to pay provident fund to its employees in accordance with the provisions of statutory Scheme - Respondent bank should not be compelled to pay the amount in excess of its statutory liability for all times to come just because the respondent bank formed its own trust and started paying provident fund in excess of its statutory liability for some time - Appellants were certainly entitled to provident fund according to statutory liability of the respondent bank - Respondent bank never discontinued its contribution towards provident fund according to the provisions of the statutory Scheme - Impugned order of Single Judge and affirmed by the DB was just, fair, appropriate and in consonance with the provisions of the 1952 Act - Appeal dismissed.

Delhi Jal Board vs National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied Workers and others [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 12 Jul 2011]
Labour & Industrial Law - Practice & Procedure - Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 - Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976 - Constitution of India, 1950, arts. 142, 20, 21, 226, 32 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, s. 2(b) - Welfare - Workman - Validity - Appeal was filed by Board and stated that State apparatus was insensitive to safety and well being of unorganized sewage workers - No appropriate mechanism for protection of persons employed by or through contractors were outsourced by State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities which were inherently hazardous and dangerous to life nor made reasonable compensation in event of death - Committee examined issues concerned with sewage workers who died due to inhaling of toxic gasses in manholes because they were not provided with protective gears - Appellants claimed that deceased workers were not employed by them - DB passed order -- Hence, instant appeal - Appellant contended that impugned order was liable to be set aside because by entertaining writ petition filed respondent No.1 in name of public interest litigation and passing orders HC transgressed limits of its jurisdiction u/art. 226 of Constitution and usurped legislative power of State - Whether HC was entitled to issue interim direction for payment of compensation to families of deceased workers - Held , Courts were not only entitled but were under Constitutional obligation to take cognizance of issues related to lives of people who were forced to undertake jobs which were hazardous and dangerous to life - Court rejected argument that by issuing directions, HC assumed legislative power of State - HC had done nothing except to ensure that those employed/engaged for doing work which was inherently hazardous and dangerous to life were provided with lifesaving equipments and employer should take care of their safety and health - State and its agencies/instrumentalities could not absolve themselves of responsibility to effective mechanism for ensuring safety of workers employed for maintaining and cleaning sewage system - As to quantum of compensation, no decision could be taken to be of binding precedent since each case had to be dealt with its own peculiar facts and thus compensation was also to be assessed on basis thereof - In view of law laid down appellant's challenge to interim directions given by HC for payment of compensation to families of workers was rejected - Thus, appellant was directed to pay compensation in addition - Appeal dismissed.

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and another vs (1) Mangal Singh and others; (3) Sharanjit Kaur (Dead) Through L.Rs.; (3) Baldev Singh and others; (4) Jagroop Singh [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 12 May 2011]
Labour & Industrial Law - Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Employees Pension/Gratuity and General Provident Fund Regulations, 1992, regn. 4 - Pension Scheme - Failure to exercise option - Effect - Respondent employees in appellant Corporation were reinstated pursuant to an HC order - Appellant subsequently introduced a Pension Scheme for its employees and framed 1992 Regulations for regulating the Scheme - Regn. 4 of the Regulations entitled the employee to re-join after leave or suspension to exercise his option for Pension Scheme within the period of 6 months from the date of his re-joining - Respondents, however, did not exercise option till the date of their superannuation and they availed the benefits of Central Provident Fund (CPF) and gratuity - Respondents subsequently filed writ petition seeking a direction to the appellant to sanction pensionary benefits under Pension Scheme to them - HC allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to allow respondents to exercise his option for pension scheme within six months - Whether the respondents were eligible to claim pensionary benefits under the Pension Scheme in view of the non-compliance of the essential conditions stipulated in the Regulations which governed the Pension Scheme - Held, appellant Corporation as well as respondents were obliged and bound to comply with the mandatory conditions and requirements of 1992 Regulations - Any action or conduct deviating from stipulated conditions of Regulations should render such action illegal and invalid - Further, respondents had availed the retiral benefits arising out of the CPF and gratuity without any protest - Respondents had made a claim for pensionary benefits under the Pension Scheme for the first time only after their retirement with an unreasonable delay of more than 8 years - Some of the respondents never opted for the Pension Scheme for their alleged want of knowledge for non-service of individual notices - It was not necessary for the appellant Corporation to give an individual notice to respondents for exercising of option for pension Scheme and also for asking respondent to refund the employers contribution of CPF at each stage - Further, in some cases, respondents applied for the option of the Pension Scheme but indisputably never fulfilled the quintessential conditions envisaged by the Regulations which were statutory in nature - Regn. 4 (iii) of the Regulations was a deeming provision to the effect: firstly, if an employee failed to exercise his option within a period of 6 months from the date of issue of these Regulations and; secondly, even on exercise of option, if an employee failed to refund the amount of advance taken from employers contribution of the CPF within 6 months from the date of issue of these Regulations, then it should be deemed that employee had opted to continue for the existing CPF benefit - Hence, failure on the part of the respondents to opt for the Pension Scheme and refund the advance taken from the employer's contribution of CPF would disentitle them from claiming any benefit under the Pension Scheme - Impugned HC order, therefore, was set aside - Appeal allowed.

Devinder Singh vs Municipal Council, Sanaur [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 11 Apr 2011]
(A) Labour & Industrial Law - Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 - Appellant was engaged by the respondent for doing the work of clerical nature - He was paid consolidated salary of Rs.1,000 per month - After two years, his service was discontinued without giving him notice and compensation as per the requirement of s. 25-F of the Act - Appellant raised industrial dispute, which was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court - Labour Court passed an award for reinstatement of the appellant without back wages - Labour Court held that the appellant had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding the termination of his service and that his service was terminated without complying with the mandatory provisions contained in s. 25F of the Act - Writ petition filed thereagainst was allowed by HC - HC held appointment of appellant was contrary to the recruitment rules and arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution - Hence, instant appeal - Whether HC was justified in upsetting the award of reinstatement? - Held, HC neither found any jurisdictional infirmity in the award of the Labour Court nor it came to the conclusion that the same was vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record - Approach adopted by the HC in dealing with the award of the Labour Court was ex facie erroneous and contrary to the law laid down by SC - Impugned order was set aside and the award passed by the Labour Court for reinstatement of the appellant was restored - Appeal allowed.

(B) Labour & Industrial Law - Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 - Definition of workman - Held, whenever an employer challenges maintainability of industrial dispute on the ground that the employee was not a workman within the meaning of s. 2(s) of the Act, what the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal was required to consider was whether the person was employed in an industry for hire or reward for doing manual, unskilled, skilled, operational, technical or clerical work in an industry - Once the test of employment for hire or reward for doing the specified type of work was satisfied, the employee would fall within the definition of 'workman' - Further, source of employment, the method of recruitment, the terms and conditions of employment/contract of service, the quantum of wages/pay and the mode of payment were not at relevant for deciding whether or not a person was a workman within the meaning of s. 2(s) of the Act - Definition of workman also did not make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis - There was nothing in the plain language of s. 2(s) from which it could be inferred that only a person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job was a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours was not a workman - Appeal allowed.

S. B. I. vs Hemant Kumar [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 06 Apr 2011]
Labour & Industrial Law - Domestic enquiry - Violation of principles of natural justice - Respondent Cashier-cum-Clerk allegedly misappropriated cash from appellant bank - Respondent was charge-sheeted and enquiry proceedings were initiated - Since respondent was absent on various dates of hearing, enquiry officer passed ex parte order holding that respondent was guilty of charges - Respondent's departmental appeal was dismissed - Respondent raised an industrial dispute - Industrial Tribunal directed reinstatement of respondent holding that departmental enquiry suffered from violation of principles of natural justice - HC upheld Tribunal order in appellant's writ petition - Whether there was any violation of principles of natural justice in instant case - Held, principles of natural justice should not be stretched to a point where they would render in-house proceedings unworkable - Respondent had not appeared for enquiry on two earlier dates and he was absent on third appointment day also - Respondent adopted dilatory tactics and in-house proceedings should be conducted expeditiously and without any undue loss of time - Tribunal's observation that three barren dates in an in-house proceeding did not amount to delay, was unfortunate - Further, respondent had already tendered two admissions of guilt in writing and one orally before management witness and there was hardly anything that could be said on his behalf to repel charges - Tribunal's findings, therefore, were wholly unreasonable and perverse and HC, unfortunately, did not consider matter properly - Hence, impugned Tribunal and HC orders were set aside - Appeal allowed.

Raymond Limited and another vs Tukaram Tanaji Mandhare and another [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 09 Mar 2011]
Labour & Industrial Law - Practice & Procedure - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, s. 3(5) - Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 - Employee - Meaning - Respondent workmen filed complaints u/s. 28 r/w Schedule IV of 1971 Act before Labour Court - Labour Court dismissed complaint as non-maintainable holding that respondents were contractors, therefore, they were not employees within meaning of s. 3(5) of 1971 Act, by relying upon SC decisions in Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steel Ltd, 2001 INDLAW SC 20358 and in Cipla Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, 2001 INDLAW SC 20503 - Respondents challenged Labour Court order before HC - Single Judge referred matter to DB - DB held that respondents' complaint before Labour Court was maintainable and respondents were employee within meaning of s. 3(5) of 1971 Act - Hence instant appeal by appellant Management - Held, a large number of SC decisions cited in impugned order, however, there was difference of opinion in some of decisions, therefore, an authoritative decision was required by a larger bench on issues involved since controversy involved was important and application of said decisions in a particular State was to be determined - Matter referred to Larger Bench - Order accordingly.

Union of India and others vs Vartak Labour Union [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 04 Mar 2011]
Labour & Industrial Law - Regularization - Entitlement - Appellant organization employed casual workers for discharging various works in its organization - Respondent Union of casual workers demanded regularization of their service - Single Judge, in respondent's writ petition, directed appellant to regularize respondents' service - DB, in appellant's appeal, directed appellant to implement Office Memo dated 02-02-2001 wherein appellant allegedly framed a scheme for welfare of causal workers - Whether respondent casual workers were entitled to regularization - Held, DB erroneously construed Office Memo dated 02-02-2001 as an approved scheme for absorption and regularization of casual workers - Office Memo dated 02-02-2001 was merely in nature of an inter-department communication between appellant organizations' headquarters and its officials - Inter-departmental communications and notings in departmental files did not have sanction of law creating a legally enforceable right - Respondent Union's claim for regularization of its members merely because they had been working for appellant organization for a considerable period of time should not be granted in light of several SC decisions wherein it had been consistently held that casual employment terminated when same was discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker had been engaged beyond period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, if original appointment was not in terms of process envisaged by relevant rules - Members of respondent Union, therefore, were not entitled to be regularized in their service and hence impugned HC order was set aside - Appeal allowed.

Search for Relevant Judgments

Search by Keywords	x