Back to Home

 Labour Law Update 


1997-98 || 1999 || 2000 || 2001 || 2002 || 2003 || 2005
Industrial Disputes Act   2001

 

1

T.J.PHILIP

 

Vs  

STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE  

2000 (87) FLR 863 [HC-KER]

CAN A WORKMAN MOVE THE HIGH COURT (ART 226) OR SUPREME COURT (ARTICLE 32) FOR ENFORCING A RIGHT UNDER AN AGREEMENT OR AWARD

1

   

2

 

  3

IN M.V.KURIAKOSE Vs STATE OF KERALA [1997(34)FLR 296 THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD:  

IF A WORKMAN HAS A REMEDY UNDER THE I.D.ACT, AN O.P.SEEKING A WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 IS NOT MAINTAINABLE

 SIMILARLY HE WILL HAVE NO RIGHT TO MOVE THE SUPREME COURT UNDER ARTICLE 32.  THIS ARTICLE IS RESERVED EXCLUSIVELY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

 

2

MANAGEMENT OF SHADLOW INDIA LTD

 

Vs

 

PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT MADRAS

 

2000 (II)LLJ-208 [HC-MAD]

1

 

 

 

2

 

   

 

3

 

 

 

AS PER SECTION 2 F OF THE I.D.ACT A RETRENCHED WORKMAN IS ELIGIBLE FOR 15 DAYS 'AVERAGE PAY'  FOR YEAR OF SERVICE

 

THOUGH SECTION 2(aaa) OF I.D.ACT DEFINES 'AVERAGE PAY' IT DOES NOT THROW LIGHT ON THE DENOMI-NATORTO BE ADOPTED  FOR ARRIVING AT THE 'AVERAGE PAY'

 

IS THE DENOMI-NATOR TO BE 30 OR 26 DAYS ?

1

 

 

   

2

 

   

3

 

 

4

 

AS A WORKER GETS ATLEAST 4 OFF DAYS AND HAS TO WORK ONLY FOR ABOUT 26 DAYS TO GET A MONTHS WAGES, THE DENOMINATOR TO BE USED SHOULD BE 26 AND NOT 30

 

AS PER SECTION 2(aaa) THE 'AVERAGE PAY' FOR A MONTHLY RATED EMPLOEE WILL BE AVERAGE WAGES PAYABLE FOR THREE CALENDAR MONTHS

 

FOR EACH CALENDAR MONTH THE DENOMINATOR WOULD BE 26

 

A.P = WAGES FOR 3 MONTHS

                     26 x 3  

Note :The recent judgement of the Calcutta High Court in Parry's Vs Industrial Tribunal reported in 2001(2) LLN has disagreed with this method and said there was no need to divide the monthly salary by 26


3

GWALIOR RAYONS WORKERS ORGANISATION

 

Vs

 

STATE OF KERALA

 

2001 (I )LLJ 1236 [HC-KER]

1

   

 

 

2

 

 

 

  3

AS PER SECTION 25(O)(5) OF I.D.ACT WHEN AN APPLICATION FOR CLOSURE IS MADE, GOVERNMENT CAN REFUSE/GRANT PERMISSION AND CAN ALSO REVIEW ITS EARLIER DECISION OR REFER THE ISSUE OF PERMISSION TO A TRIBUNAL

 

IN THIS CASE GOVERNMENT INITIALLY REFUSED, EMPLOYER MADE A REVIEW PETITION ON WHICH GOVERNMENT ONCE AGAIN REFUSED PERMISSION AND PARALLELY REFERRED THE ISSUE TO THE TRIBUNAL

 

CAN THE GOVERNMENT REFUSE AND PARALLELY REFER THE ISSUE TO THE TRIBUNAL ?

 

THE DIVISION BENCH HELD EVEN THOUGH THE GOVERNMENT HAS REFUSED PERMISSION A SECOND TIME, THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY OR IRREGULARITY IN THE GOVERNMENT REFERRING THE ISSUE FOR A DETAILED SCRUTINY BY THE TRIBUNAL

FOR GRANT/REFUSAL OF PERMISSION

4

SHANTANU G JOSHI

 

Vs

 

HINDUSTAN ANTIBIOTICS LTD

 

2001(89) FLR 430 [HC-BOM]

1

 

 

 

  2

BASED ON THE LAND MARK JUDGEMENT BY THE SUPREME COURT IN H.R.ADAYANTA  Vs  SANCOZ (I) LTD 1994(69) FLR 593 THE LABOUR COURT, BOMBAY, HAD HELD THAT A MEDICAL SALES REPRESENTATIVE WOULD NOT BE A 'WORKMAN' UNDER 2(S) OF THE I.D.ACT

 

QUESTION RAISED WAS WHETHER BY INVOKING SECTION 6(2) OF THE SALES PROMOTION EMPLOYEES ACT 1976 CAN A SALES REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM THE PROTECTION BENEFITS UNDER THE I.D.ACT

 

BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 6(2) OF THE SALES PROMOTION EMPLOYEES ACT, A MEDICAL SALES REPRESENTATIVE WHO HAS BEEN DISCHARGED/ DISMISSED OR RETRENCHED THOUGH WOULD NOT BE COMING UNDER THE REFINITION OF 'WORKMAN' UNDER SECTION 2(S) OF THE I.D.ACT, HE COULD STILL RAISE A DISPUTE UNDER I.D.ACT IF HE HAS BEEN DISMISSED/DISCHARGED OR RETRENCHED.