Back to Home

 Labour Law Update 


1997-98 || 1999 || 2000 || 2001 || 2002 || 2003 || 2005
Miscellaneous   1997-‘98

 

tcm ltd

Vs
district collector [1997 (76) flr 628 hc-ker-sbi

 

does the right to strike include the right to force unwilling workmen to join the strike and the right to obstruct movement of finished goods

 

while the kerala high court in its judgement in the gwalior rayons case (1982 L & IC 367) had spelt out the rights of striking workmen.  in this judgement it has spelt out the rights of workmen who do not wish to participate in the strike held - the right to strike will not extend to the right to obstruct those who do not wish to strike. hence when the rights of one section clash with right of another section police bound to  provide protection to non-striking workers and for movement of goods.

 

tata iron & steel co.

vs

maharashtra mathadi labour board. nagpur [this is a decision bythe national consumer PROTEC-TION COURT -REPORTED IN ECONOMIC TIMES DATED 3.8.97]

can a trade union be made liable for damages under the consumer protection ACT FOR ITS MEMBERS GOING ON ILLEGAL STRIKE?

section 18 of the trade union act 1926 providing for immunity against civil suits/damage claims  WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE WHEN THE STRIKE IS IN A PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE AND IT IS ILLEGAL.

 

 

ASSOCIATE BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

          VS

STATE BANK OF INDIA [1998 ILLN 49 SC-DB]

SALARY AND BENEFITS OF SBI OFFICERS ARE BETTER THAN THE BENEFITS GIVEN TO OFFICERS OF THE SUBSIDIARY BANKS OF SBI.  DOES THIS VIOLATE THE  PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK IS  NOT JUSTICIABLE AS PER ARTICLE 37. STRETCHING OF THIS DOCTRINE MUST BE DONE WITH CAUTION. LEST THE DOCTRINE SNAPS. MERE DIFFERENCE IS NOT DISCRIMINATION.  UNLESS THERE IS IDENTIFIABLE DISCRIMINATION. THE DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED.

 

JK INDUSTRIES

VS

THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES [1997 ILLJ 724 SC-DB]

IS ESTABLISHMENT OF MENS REA ESSENTIAL FOR PROSECUTING AN OCCUPIER  UNDER SECTION 92 FOR VIOLATION OF THE FACTORY ACT PROVISIONS.

THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE IN CRIMINAL LAW IS THAT A CONVICTION WILL LIE ONLY IF MENS REA IS ESTABLISHED. HOWEVER AS PER SECTION 92 OF THE FACTORY ACT FOR PROSECTION UNDER SECTION 92 OF FACTORIES ACT ESTABLISHMENT OF MENS REA IS NOT ESSENTIAL. THE ACCUSED MUST PROVE HIS INNOCENSE OR THAT HE HAS TAKEN DUE CARE TO COMPLY WITH THE FACTORIES ACT

 

STATE OF PUNJAB

VS

MOHINDER SINGH CHAWLA 1997 (3) LLN -262 SC-DB]

HAS THE GOVERNMENT A CONSTITUTIONAL OBLI-GATION TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE TO ITS SERVANTS AFTER THEIR RETIREMENT

IF THE GOVERNMENT SERVANT HAS SUFFERED AN AILMENT WHICH REQUIRES A TREATMENT IN A SPECIALISED APPROVED HOSPITAL.  ON A REFERENCE TO THAT HOSPITAL. THE STATE HAS TO BEAR THE MEDICAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON THAT SERVANT.

 

THOMAS

VS

DIST LABOUR OFFICER [1998 (2) LLN 623 HC-KER-DB]

ARE HEAD LOAD WORKERS ENGAGED UNDER THE HEAD LOAD WORKERS ACT. THE EMPLOYEES OF THE PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER.

THEY ARE NOT EMPLOYEES. THEY ARE NOT EMPLOYED BUT ONLY ENGAGED BY THE EMPLOYER AS THESE WORKERS NEED NOT BE UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE SERVICE OF THE EMPLOYER.

 

Top

Miscellaneous   1999

 

management of kallayar estate

Vs

chief inspector of plantations [1999(i)llj 180 hc-mad-sb]

section 5 of the maternity benefit act stipulates that a female employee can claim maternity benefit only if she has worked for 160 days during the 12 months period prior to her expected date of delivery.  A female employee who had not put in 160 days work before her miscarriage applied for 6 weeks maternity leave under section 9 for miscarriage.  is employer legally obliged to give her the 6-week leave with benefits ?

while section 5 dealing with maternity and delivery prescribes qualifying attendance of 160 days, section 9 dealing with miscarriage and medical termination of pregnancy is silent on any qualifying attendance and hence she is eligible for 6 weeks leave without putting in any qualifying attendance.

hariram gupta

vs.

the state of up 1998(80) flr 67 [sc-db]

in the famous nakara’s case 1983 (47) flr 42 the supreme court held that pensioners form a single class and they cannot be bifurcated.

based on this judgement the petitioners demanded that they be paid the enhanced pension rates announce at a future date after their retirement

the nakara’s case has been over ruled/distinguished in the following subsequent sc judgements 1994 (4) scc 68 1991 (62) flr 287 1992 (1) scc 664

non provident fund pensioners and provident fund eligible retirees form a different class and pf retirees cannot claim benefits of enhanced rates, unless the revised scheme provides for retorspective application.

whenever a revision takes place a cut off date becomes imperative and benefits cannot be claimed by earlier retirees.