| REFERENCE | ISSUE RAISED | HELD | |||
| 1 | BPL LTD
VS SUDHAKAR 2005(104) |
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) |
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) |
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, IF THEY CANNOT ESTABLISH THIS THEY |
| 4 | ALARSIN MARKETING EMPLOYEES UNION
VS ALARSIN PHARMACEUTICALS LTD 2004(3) |
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 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) |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
