6

STATE BANK OF INDIA

  Vs  

RAM CHANDRA DUBEY

2001(I) LLN 58 [SC]

1

2

3

  4

5

LABOUR COURT HAD ORDERED REINSTATE-MENT OF A WORKMAN BUT WAS SILENT ON BACKWAGES IF ANY TO BE PAID

WORKMAN FILED

A 33( C )(2) PETITION IN LABOUR COURT AND LABOUR COURT ORDERED PAYMENT OF BACKWAGES

EMPLOYER CHALLENGED THE LABOUR COURT ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT

HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHEN THE LABOUR COURT ORDER ON REINSATEMENT IS SILENT, ENTITLEMENT FOR BACKWAGES IS TO BE PRESUMED

IS SUCH A PRESUMPTION IN

ORDER ?

1

2

3

  4

5

WHEN THE LABOUR COURT ORDERED REINSTATEMENT, IF IT HAS NOT PASSED ANY SPECIFIC ORDER IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT BACKWAGES IS PAYABLE

THERE HAS TO BE SPECIFIC

SPEAKING ORDER ABOUT THE EXTENT OF BACK WAGES IF ANY TO BE PAID

A CLAIM PETITION UNDER 33(C)(2) FOR BACKWAGES IN THIS CASE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS THE EMPLOYEE HAS NOT AQUIRED ANY RIGHT TO SUCH WAGES

PETITIONS UNDER 33 (C)(2) CAN NOT BE FILED FOR AN AMOUNT WHICH IS CLAIMED AS 'JUST AND FIAR'

SUCH CLAIMS CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED WHEN AN I.D. IS REFERRED UNDER SECTION 10(1).

7

HIND RECTIFIERS LTD

Vs

PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, BOMBAY

2001(I) LLN 156 [HC-BOM]

1

  2

SECTION 17(B) OF THE I.D.ACT STIPULATES THAT AN EMPLOYER WHO PREFERES TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE REINSTATEMENT ORDERS OF A LABOUR COURT IN THE HIGH COURT/SUPREME COURT SHOULD PAY THE FULL WAGES TO SUCH DISMISSED WORKMEN DURING THE PERIOD SUCH APPEAL IS PENDING IN THE HIGH COURT.

THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL WENT BEYOND THE SUPERANNUATION DATE OF THE DISMISSED EMPLOYEE.  IS THE EMPLOYEE ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM FULL WAGES BEYOND THE SUPERANNUATION DATE ?

1

  2

3

THE SCOPE OF SECTION 17(B) MUST BE READ TO IMPLY AS THE WAGES HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED UNDER THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT

IF THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT CAME TO A NATURAL END, ON ACCOUNT OF HIS SUPERANNUATION, THE RIGHT TO WAGES UNDER 17(B) WILL ALSO RUN ONLY UPTOTHE DATE OF SUPERANNUATON.

THERE WILL BE NO WAGE ENTITLEMENT FOR THE POST SUPERANNUATION PENDENCY PERIOD.

8

SEELAN RAJ & OTHERS 

Vs

PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

2001(I)LLJ 1335 [SC]

1

2

AS PER SECTION 25-L OF THE I.D.ACT, IF AN ESTABLISHMENT IS CARRYING ON MANUFACTURING PROCESS AND FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF FACTORY UNDER THE FACTORIES ACT, FOR CLOSURE OF SUCH ESTABLISHMENTS, THE PROCEDURE OUTLINED IN SECTIONS 25-O & 25-FFA OF THE I.D.ACT WILL HAVE TO BE COMPLIED WITH

ISSUE RAISED IS CAN A DATA PROCESSING COMPANY UNDER-TAKING DATA PROCESS WORK ON CONTRACT BE SAID TO BE DOING A MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY TO MAKE IT A FACTORY ?

SINCE THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE CASE IS COMPLEX THE SUPREME COURT ORDINARY BENCH DECIDED TO REFER THE ISSUE TO A LARGER BENCH AS WAS DONE IN A SIMILAR CASE IN TATA CONSUL-TANCY Vs  STATE OF A.P [2001(2)SLT 662]

9

RAM LAKHAN Vs

PRESIDING OFFICER

2001(88) FLR

531 [SC]

1

MANAGEMENT FILED A PERMISSION APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 33(1) AND PLACED THE WORKMAN UNDER SUSPENSION

DURING THIS SUSPENSION PERIOD IS WORKMAN ENTITLED TO ANY PAYMENT [FULL/SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE/NO WAGES]?

DURING THIS PERIOD MASTER SERVANT RELATIONSHIP SUBSISTS

HE HAS TO BE PAID FULL WAGES UNLESS THE SERVICE RULES OR STANDING ORDERS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES FOR REDUCED WAGES OR SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE.