Trade Unions

BY H.A.C.POPPEN

reference

issue raised / facts

held

pethambaran

vs

ramachandran [1999-ii-llj-832-hc-ker]

two unions claimed that they had an agreement with the employer to recruit in the ratio 1:1:1 with management having freedom only to recruit 1/3rd and other 2/3rd  to be nominees of the union

-    trade unions cannot acts as recruiting agencies and even there is an agreement for recruitment sharing it is legally unsustainable

-    any such agreement would affect the fundamental rights of members of other unions or claimants who are not members of any union

thuravoor mahakshetra bhaktajana samathi

vs

administrative officer

[2000-i-llj-1267-hc-ker]

-    the temple authorities had tried to construct stalls for the temple festival.

-    the stall traders tried to deploy their own labour for unloading their materials.

-    the local head load workers union obstructed and insisted that the job can only be done by them

-    the kerala head load workers act applies only to establishments mentioned in the scheduled to the act and the temple does not find a place in the schedule

-      headload workers have no claim and police ordered to remove the obstruction caused by such workers.

bhageeratha engg. ltd.

vs

supdt. of police [1999 (4) LLN-1087-HC-ker]

-  construction workers obstructed the use of mechanical devices for the national highway widening work and insisted that work should be done manually or the union should be given no objection money (ghost money) for permitting the use of mechanical devices.

-    police refused to remove obstruction

-    ordered the police to provide necessary police protection to carry out the work without obstruction

-    union have no right to claim ghost money

-    if there is any manual job the registered head load workers may be considered for deployment.

Payment of Wages Act

  BY H.A.C.POPPEN

reference

issue raise / facts

held

tyre retreading shop committe

vs

a.p.s.r.t.c [2000-i-llj-438hc-hyd]

payment of wages act section 9(2) provides that employees who go on flash strikes in violation of the contract of employment could be penalised with 8 days wage deduction

can this be applied to all employees irrespective of their salary limits

this provision under 9(2) of the P.W.ACT 1936 cannot be applied to employees drawing wages above its coverage limit fixed under section 1(6)

section 1(6) states  that nothing in the P.W.ACT shall be applicable to employees drawing salary above rs.1,600/- pm.

Payment of Wages Act

  BY H.A.C.POPPEN

reference

issue raise / facts

held

air freight

vs

state of karnataka [1999-ii-llj 705 sc]

the total minimum wage paid was higher than the statutory minimum but the d.a element was lower than the da prescribed under the notified rates

authorities launched prosecution for not paying statutory wage

is this justified ?

-    the laws does not visualise component wise comparison

         it is enough if the total amount paid by employer is higher than the notified total.

however as per section 2(h) VALUE OF FIVE TYPES OF ELEMENTS MUST BE EXCLUDED FOR DECIDING WHETHER TOTAL AMOUNT PAID BY EMPLOYER IS HIGHER [SEE SECTION 2(h)]