| |
REFERENCE |
|
ISSUE RAISED |
|
HELD |
| 1 |
BPL LTD
VS
SUDHAKAR
2005(104)
FLR450-[SC] |
1
2
3
4
5 |
GOVERNMENT REFERED A DISPUTE TO INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL FOR ADJUDICATION
MANAGEMENT OBTAINED A STAY ON THIS REFERENCE
MANAGEMNT DISMISSSED AN EMPLOYEE WITHOUT APPLYING FOR 33(2) APPROVALS
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE HIGH COURT ALSO HELD THAT AN INTERIM STAY WILL NOT ABSOLVE MANAGEMNT FROM ITS RESPONSIBILTY TO OBTAIN PERMISSION UNDER SEC33(2)(b)
MANAGEMNT CHALLENGED THIS IN SUPREME COURT
|
1
2 |
SINCE THERE WAS A STAY ORDER AND THER WAS NO ADJUDICATION PENDING ON THE DATE OF DISMISSAL, THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF SECTION 33(2) (b) OF
ID ACT
NO APPROVAL WAS REQUIRED FROM TRIBUNAL
|
| 2 |
MANAGEMENT OF GORDON WOODROFFE LTD
VS
PO PRINCIPAL LAB COURT
2004(3)
LLJ 539[SC]
OR
2004(102)
FLR 1013[SC]
|
1
2
3
4 |
LABOUR COURT HELD CLOSURE TO BE PROPER AND VALID
AFTER HOLDING CLOSURE AS PROPER AND VALID OREDERED PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AND EX-GRATIA ON GROUNDS OF SOCIAL JUSTICE
SINGLE BENCH AND DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT UPHELD THE LABOUR COURT ORDER FOR EX-GRATIA AND ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION
MANAGEMENT CHALLENGED THE HC ORDER IN SC
|
1 |
AFTER HAVING FOUND THE CLOSURE TO BE BONA-FIDE AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW,THE LABOUR COURT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ORDER PAYMENT OFADDITIONAL COMPENSATION OR EX-GRATIA OVER AND ABOVE THE CLOSURE COMPENSATION PAYABLE UNDER ID ACT |
| 3 |
MUKESH TRIPATHI
VS
Sr DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIC
2004(103)
FLR 350 [SC
|
1
2 |
THE
DEFINITION OF “WORKMAN” UNDER SECTION 2(S) OF ID ACT
SAYS IT SHALL ALSO INCLUDE APPRENTICE
CAN APPRENTICE THEREFORE RAISE DISPUTES OR CLAIM BENEFITS UNDER ID ACT
|
1
2
3
4 |
THOUGH THE DEFINITION OF “WORKMAN” IN SEC 2(S) OF THE ID ACT 1947 INCLUDES AN APPRENTICE,THROUGH THE SUBSEQUENT SPECIAL LEGISLATION ON APPRENTICES[APPRENTICES ACT 1961] STATUTORY APPRENTICES HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM THE PURVIEW OF LABOUR LAWS[SEE Sn 18 OF APP ACT 1961][EXCEPT FOR BENEFIT UNDER WC ACT 1923]
THEREFORE ALL STATUTORY APPRENTICES ARE NOT WORKEAN UNDER ID ACT
NON STATUTORY APPRENTICES CAN CLAIM BENIFIT/STATUS OF WORKMEN ONLY IF THEY CAN ESTABLISH THAT THEY ARE DOING THE JOBS SPELT OUT IN SEC 2(S) LIKE MANNUAL, SKILLED, UNSKILLED,
TECHNICAL, OPERATIONAL,
CLERICAL OR SUPERVISORY WITH SALARY OR LESS THAN Rs1600 PM
IF THEY CANNOT ESTABLISH THIS THEY
WOULD NOT BE WORKMEN |
| 4 |
ALARSIN MARKETING EMPLOYEES UNION
VS
ALARSIN PHARMACEUTICALS LTD
2004(3)
LLJ 870
[HC-BOM-SB]
|
1
2
3
4 |
SEC 9A OF ID ACT STIPULATES THAT EMPLOYER MUST GIVE NOTICE OF CHANGE FOR ITEMS FALLING UNDER SCHEDULE 4 OF THE ACT
ITEMS 10 & 11 OF SCHEDULE 4 READS AS FOLLOWS
“10.RATIONALISATION, STANDARDISATION OR IMPROVEMENT OF PLANT OR TECHNIQUE WHICH IS LIKELY TO LEAD TO RETRENCHMENT OF WORKMEN”
“11.ANY INCREASE OR REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF PERSONS EMPLOYED OR TO BE EMPLOYED IN ANY OCCUPATION OR SHIFT NOT OCCASIONED BY CIRCUMSTANCES OVER WHICH EMPLOYER HAS NO CONTROL”
EMPLOYER CLOSED DOWN ITS MAILING SECTION & RETRENCHED THE WORKMEN WITHOUT GIVING ANY NOTICE OF CHANGE
UNIONS ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 9A
|
1
2 |
ITEMS 10 & 11 OF THE 4 SCHEDULE IS ATTRACTED ONLY WHEN THE PLANT, OCCUPATION OR SHIFT IS TO CONTINUE WITH INCREASED OR DECREASED MANNING
IF THE PLANT, OCCUPATION OR SHIFT IS TOTALLY DISCONTINUED OR CLOSED, SEC9A IS NOT ARTTRACTED &HENCE NO VIOLATION
|
| 5 |
SANGHAM TAPE COMPANY
VS
HANS RAJ
2004(3)
LLJ 1141[SC] |
1 |
DOES THE LABOUR COURT OR TRIBUNAL HAVE POWERS TO SET ASIDE ITS OWN EX-PARTE AWARD
|
1
2 |
ONCE AN AWARD OF A LABOUR COURT/TRIBUNAL BECOMES ENFORCEABLE AS PER SECTION 17-A THE COURT, TRIBUNAL WILL HAVE NO AUTHORITY OR POWER TO SET ASIDE ITS OWN EX-PARTE DECISIONS
HOWEVER IT THE PARTIES APPROACH THE COURT/TRIBUNAL WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE PUBLICATION OF THE AWARD, THE COURT/TRIBUNAL WILL HAVE POWER TO SET ASIDE ITS EX-PARTE AWARD
|
| 6 |
M/S MARUTI UDYOG LTD
VS
RAMLAL & OTHERS
[2005(104)
FLR 820-SC]
OR
[2005(1)
LLJ 853] |
1
2
3
|
AS PER SEC25 H, A RETRENCHED WORKER HAS A RIGHT OF RE-EMPLOYMENT IF THE EMPLOYER REVIVES THE OPERATION
AS PER SEC 25 FF & 25FFF WHEN AN UNDERTAKING IS TRANSFERRED OR CLOSED, AFFECTED WORKMEN ARE ELIGIBLE FOR COMPENSATION AS APPLICABLE UNDER SEC 25 F
ARE WORKMEN WHO LOSE THEIR JOB CONSEQUENT TO TRANSFER OR CLOSURE OF AN UNDERTAKING ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM RE-EMPLOYMENT UNDER 25-H IF THE UNDERTAKING IS REVIVED AND OPERATIONS
RE-STATRED?
|
1 |
THE RIGHT OF RE-EMPLOYMENT IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO WORKMEN RETRENCHED UNDER 25 F AND THIS RIGHT IS NOT AVAILABLE TO WORKMEN WHO LOSE THEIR JOBS DUE TO TRANSFER UNDER 25FF OR 25FFF |
| 7 |
OSWAL AGROFURANE LTD
VS
OSWAL WORKERS UNION
[2005(1)
LLJ 1117-SC] |
1
2
3 |
AS RER SECTIOB 25-N AND 25-O AN EMPLOYER WHO INTENDS TO RETRENCH/CLOSE DOWN IS REQUIRED TO APPLY FOR GOVERNMENT PERMISSION
COMPANY WITHOUT APPLYING FOR GOVERNMENT PERMISSION, ENTERED INTO CONCILIATION SETTLEMENT WITH THE WORMEN ON THE CLOSURE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT
IS SUCH A SETTLEMENT ENFORCEABLE?
|
1
2 |
ANY AGREEMENT OPPOSED TO PUBLIC POLICY [IN THIS CASE REQUIREMENT OF GOVERNMENT PERMISSION] IS NULL AND VOID AS PER SECTION 23 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT 1872
SINCE THE CONTRACT IS VOID AB-INITIO, IT IS NOT ENFORCEABLE BY LAW
|
| 8 |
DAMOH PANNA RURAL BANK
VS
SARVESH BERRY
[2005(104)
FLR 291-SC]
|
1 |
UNDER SECTION 11-A OF ID ACT, LABOUR COURTS ARE EMPOWERED TO REDUCE THE PUNISHMENT OF DISMISSED WORKMEN IF THE COURT FINDS THE PUNISHMENT TOO HARSH OR DISPROPORTIONATE TO MISCONDUCT COMMITED
IS THERE ANY LIMITATION TO POWES OF THE LABOUR COURT? |
1
2
3
4 |
IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT LABOUR COURTS HAVE UNLIMITED AND WIDE POWERS UNDER SECTION 11-A TO REDUCE PUNISHMENTS
NORMALLY EMPLOYER ALONE SHOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE PUNISHMENTS FOR ENSURING DISCIPLINE
LABOUR COURTS CAN INTERFERE ONLY IF THE LABOUR COURT GIVES A REASONED ORDER SHOWING THAT THE PUNISHMENTS IMPOSED BY EMPLOYER IS SHOCKINGLY DISPROPORTIONATE AND HAS DISTURBED CONSCIENCE OF THE COURT
COURTS MERELY MENTIONING THAT THE PUNISHMENT IS SHOCKING OR DISPROPORTIONATE WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH
|
