viru dhachalam

vs

management of lotus mills [1998 (I) llj 389 sc-db]

a settlement arrived at in conciliation, is it binding on members of unions that did not sign the settlement

it is binding on all unions which have Participated in the conciliation proceedings or who have been summoned to the conciliation proceedings

- do -

section 25 c of the id act stipulates that workmen are eligible to 50% of wages as lay off compensation and section 25 j states that the benefits of chapter v a [lay off/retrench-ment) shall have effect not with- standing any other law or standing order provi-sions.  in this context is a conciliation settlement providing for discontinuation of lay off compensation legally enforceable on the members of the union that refused to sign the settlement.

25 j is intended to protect the  workmen against the provisions of any other law. it is  not intended to protect the workmen against any of the provisions in the id act itself. a settlement signed under 18(3)/12(3) of the id act would not be affected by section 25 J

indian rayaon karma-chari mandal

vs

conciliation officer [1998 (I) llj -376 hl-gj-sb]

under section 33(3) of  id act certain protection is conferred on the principal office bearers of the unions.  can this be claimed by all union office bearers.

the industrial disputes rules on section 33(3) requires that the list of such union office bearers should be submitted to the management before 30th APRIL of each year. if this has not been compiled with, the union office bearers cannot claim THe protection conferred under section0 33(3)

transport & dockworkersunion

vs

chowgule steamship [1997 (2) lln 434 hc-bom-db]

as per item 4 of schedule iv and section 9A of the id act 21 days advance notice of change must be given if an employer wishes to change hours of work and rest intervals. an employer while retaining the same hours & intervals changed the periods of work.  that is the 8 to 4 shift changed to 7 to 3 or 6 to 2 pm. would such change attract notice of change under 9 A.

held periods of work can be altered by employer and it would not amount to altering hours of work and rest intervals. as contemplated in schedule iv. hence there is no violation of 9A.

an appeal filed by Blue star Employees federation before hc of bombay. [quoted in indian express bombay 25.04.98]

is a notice of change to be issued under section 9A of the id act for introducing a voluntary retirement scheme

in a recent judgement the bombay high court has held that a notice under 9A needs to be issued before introduction of a vrs.

government of nct of delhi

vs

banbirsing [1997(76) flr 569 hc-del-db ] based on sc in central bank case in 1996 (74) flr 2063 sc-db]

some workmen were retrenched one of them had not put in the qualifying attendance of 240 days and hence received no compen-sation under section 25 f.  as per section 25H. employer to give preference to retren-ched workmen if work is re-started. company did not offer reemploy-ment to this one workers - is company’s action proper.

held not proper. 25h is applicable to all retrenched workers irrespective of whether they qualified for retrenchment compen-sation under 25f or not.

dena bank

vs

kirtikumar patel [1998 llr-i sc-db]

as per section 17(2) awards of labour courts/tribunals are final. a new section 17B was added in 1994 permitting review petitions to hc/sc against reinstatement orders on the condition that the employer continues to pay to the workman the full wages last drawn  till the disposal of the review petition. the full wages last drawn was interpretted by different high courts differently.  some held it should include increments + pay revisions which arose during pendency.

this ruling of the sc has ended the uncetainity and held the term fuyll wages last drawn can only be the full wages last drawn by that particular employee and shall not include any other items like increment or wages revisions etc.

mp state handloom coop

vs

shankarlal gupta [1997 (75) flr 424 hc-mp-db]

can a conciliation officer issue interim orders before the  finalisation of the proceedings of the dispute

conciliation proceeding under section 12 of the id act are not judicial or quasi-judicial proceed-ings. he would be exceeding his powers under section 12 if he issues any interim or final orders.  his role is merely to mediate and get the parties to agree on a possible solution.