Apex Law Journal
Apex Law Journal
An online law journal reporting latest and important judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.                                                                                                                         Click here to get free legal updates via email                                                                                                                          Click here to download forms (Address Form, List Of Documents and Memorandum Of Appearance)
User Name :
Password :
New Subscriber
Forgot Password
 

Editor

Neha Goel, Advocate

Advisory Board

S.C. Khunger, Advocate

Rohit Bansal, Advocate

Varinder Singh Kanwar, Advocate

Hittan Nehra, Advocate

Judgments on Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 25F — Engagement of respondent as daily wager brought to an end in violation of Section 25F — Relief of reinstatement — Held, the High Court erred in granting relief of reinstatement to the respondent — The respondent was engaged as daily wager in 1978 and his engagement continued for about 7 years intermittently upto September 6, 1985 i.e. about 25 years back — Relief of reinstatement cannot be justified and instead monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice — Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees Onc lac) in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate, just and equitable — Appeal allowed.

 
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 11A — The decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 1] cited by the counsel for the respondent relates to regularization in public employment and has no relevance to an Award for reinstatement of a discharged workman passed by the Labour Court under Section 11A of the Act without any direction for regularization of his services.

 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 11A — Constitution of India 1950, Articles 226 and 227 — Wide discretion is vested in the Labour Court while adjudicating an industrial dispute relating to discharge or dismissal of a workman and if the Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case to direct re-instatement of a workman with 50% back wages taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, the High Court in exercise of its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with the same, except on well settled principles laid down by this Court for a writ of certiorari against an order passed by a Court or a Tribunal. 

 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 25F — Whether the High Court was right in setting aside the Award dated 18.07.2006 of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the appellant with 50% back wages and directing instead payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant? — Held, the respondent has not taken any stand before the Labour Court in his objections that the post in which the workman was working was not sanctioned or that his engagement was contrary to statutory rules or that he was employed elsewhere or that there was no vacancy — In the absence of any pleadings, evidence or findings on any of these aspects, the High Court should not have modified the Award of the Labour Court directing re-instatement of the appellant with 50% back wages and instead directed payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant — Decisions of this Court in Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula & Anr. [(2008) 1 SCC 575] and Ghaziabad Development Authority & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar & Anr. [(2008) 4 SCC 261] have no application to the facts in this case — Appeal allowed — Order passed by the High Court set aside — Appellant to be re-instated as a daily wager with 50% back wages forthwith.

 
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Back wages — Payment of full back wages upon an order of termination being declared illegal, held, cannot be granted mechanically — It does not automatically follow that reinstatement must be accompanied by payment of full back wages even for the period when the workman remained out of service and contributed little or nothing to the industry.

 
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, whether adequate and in the interest of justice? — Held, yes. 

 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 25F — Retrenchment of a daily wager in violation of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act who had worked for more than 240 days in a year — Relief of reinstatement with back wages, whether automatic? — Held, in the case of Jagbir Singh V. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board [JT 2009(9)SCC396] it has been held that that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention to the prescribed procedure — Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice.

 
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 2(s) — Part-time workman — A workman employed on a part time basis but under the control and supervision of an employer is a workman in term of Section 2(s) of the Act, and is entitled to claim the protection of Section 25F thereof, should the need so arise.

 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 2(s), 25B and 25F — A part-time workman, held, would be covered within the definition in Section 2(s) of the Act and he would be entitled to the benefit of continuous service under Section 25B and the benefit of Section 25F. 

 
Monday, July 14, 2008
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 9 — Where the Certified Standing Orders are applicable and where the breach thereof is complained of, such issues, held, fall in the exclusive area of the machinery provided by the Industrial Disputes Act and as such the civil court’s jurisdiction is specifically barred — Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. vs. Krishna Kant & Ors. [(1995) 5 SCC 74] relied.  

 
Friday, June 13, 2008
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 22 and 20(1) — Notice of strike — Conciliation proceedings — Held, when strike notice under Section 22 of the Act has been given the Conciliation Officer is mandatorily required to hold the conciliation proceedings under Section 20(1) of the Act.   

 

 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 22(1) sub-sections (a) and (b) — Object — Held, the object of enacting sub-sections (a) and (b) of Section 22(1) is for the purpose of ensuring that workers do not rush into strike and give a chance to the Conciliation Officer to resolve the dispute.

 

 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 22(1) and Section 22(4) — Central rules, Rule 71, Form ‘L’ — Prescribed manner in which notice of strike is to be given — Held, Sub-section (4) of Section 22 states that the notice of strike referred to in sub-section (1) has to be given in such manner as may be prescribed — The Central Rule 71 prescribes the manner in which the notice has to be given and the notice is in Form 'L' — The notice as mandated under Section 22 has to be given to the employer.

 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 22 — Intimation or copy of the notice to the Conciliation Officer — Held, there is nothing in Section 22 which requires giving of intimation or copy of the notice under Section 22 to the Conciliation Officer.

 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 22(1)(b) read with Section 22(1)(a) — Plea taken by the respondents 2 to 23 that in terms of Section 22(1)(b) after 14 days of giving the notice, the workmen can go on strike — Whether, can be accepted? — Held, no — If this plea is accepted six weeks' time stipulated in Section 22 (1)(a) becomes redundant — The expression "giving such notice" as appearing in Section 22(1)(b) refers to the notice under Section 22(1)(a) — Obviously, therefore, the workmen cannot go on strike within six weeks notice in terms of Section 22(1)(a) and 14 days thereafter in terms of Section 22(1)(b).

 

 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 22(1)(b) — Expression “giving such notice” — Held, the expression "such notice" refers to 6 weeks advance notice.

 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 22 — Illegal strike — Whether can be remedied by a subsequent strike? — Held, no — Earlier illegal strike is not remedied by a subsequent strike as provided in Section 22 — If such stand is accepted it will go against the requirement of Section 22 which aims at stalling action for illegal strike.

 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 22(1)(a) — Notice of strike — In the present case, the date of notice is 14.03.1991 and the proposed strike was on 24.03.1991 — Held, notice cannot be treated to be one under Section 22(1)(a).

 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 22(1) — Strike — Section 22(1) prohibits a strike in a public utility service, in breach of contract, without giving to the employer advance notice of six weeks — It prohibits strike (a) within the notice period of six weeks, (b) within 14 days of giving such notice, (c) before the expiry of the date of strike specified in such a notice, (d) during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a Conciliation Officer and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings.  

 
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 25FFF read with Section 25F — Compensation to workmen in case of closing down of undertakings — If the entire establishment of the employer is not closed down but only a unit or undertaking is closed down which has no functional integrity with other units or undertaking, the provisions of Section 25FFF of the Act, held, will get attracted and the workmen are only entitled to compensation as provided in Section 25FFF of the Act which has to be calculated in accordance with Section 25F of the Act — Appeal allowed. 

 
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 25F read with Section 25B — Respondent appointed as a daily wager — He worked for a period of 145 days from October, 1994 to February, 1995 in Sub-division No.2 — He also worked for a period  of 90 days from March, 1995 to July, 1995 in Sub-division No.3 — His services were terminated — Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, however, by an order dated 28.2.2003 directed reinstatement of the respondent with full backwages and continuity of services on the ground that the services rendered by the respondent in both the Sub-Divisions should be counted for the purpose of Section 25F read with Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Admitted position that the two Sub-divisions constituted two different establishments — Held, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court committed an illegality while passing an award in the year 2003, directing the reinstatement of the respondent with full backwages — Once two establishments are held to be separate and distinct having different cadre strength of the workmen, if any, the period during which the workman was working in one establishment would not enure to his benefit when he was recruited separately in another establishment, particularly when he was not transferred from one Sub-Division to the other — Further held, only because there is one Controlling Authority, the same by itself would not mean that the establishments were not separate.

 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 11-A — Despite a wide discretionary power conferred upon the Industrial Courts under Section 11A of the 1947 Act, the relief of reinstatement with full back-wages should not be granted automatically only because it would be lawful to do so — Grant of relief would depend on the fact situation obtaining in each case — It will depend upon several factors; one of which would be as to whether the recruitment was effected in terms of the statutory provisions operating in the field, if any.

 
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 25-F and Section 2(oo)(bb) — Applicability of Section 25-F of the Act — Held, Section 25-F will not be applicable where Section 2(oo)(bb) is applicable.  

 
Friday, December 22, 2006
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 2(oo)(bb) — Retrenchment — Services of a workman terminated in view of the exception contained in clauses (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act — Whether amounts to retrenchment? — Held, no — Chapter V is not applicable is such like cases.

 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Clause (10) of the Fifth Schedule — Expression ‘status’ and ‘privilege’ — Held, ‘status’ and ‘privilege’ must emanate from a statute — If legal right has been derived by the workman to continue in service in terms of the provisions of the Act under which he is governed, then only, the question of depriving him of any status or privilege would arise. 

 
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 25-F — Retrenchment compensation — Claim — Initial burden, held, is on the claimant/workman to lead evidence to show that he had infact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination — Further held, filing of an affidavit by claimant/workman cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, infact, worked for 240 days in a year.

 
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 2(b) — ‘Workmen’ — Whether “jewel appraisers for loans” are to be treated as workers and are to be absorbed as part time clerical staff of the Bank ? — Held, no — Jewel appraisers are not employees of the Bank.

 
Monday, May 15, 2006
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 2(oo) (bb), 25-F — Retrenchment — Engagement of the workman was for specific period and conditional — It was clearly indicated that on appointment of a regular employee, his engagement was to come to an end — Held, order dispensing with services of respondent on appointment of permanent employee does not amount to retrenchment and cannot be set aside for contravention of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Orders of the Labour Court and the High Court quashed — Appeal allowed.

 
Act Topic
Rule Citation
Keyword
 
Free Text Search
 
Follow us on :
(Best view with 1024x768 Resolution)
© All rights including Copyrights and rights of translations etc, reserved and vested exclusively with Deepak Publications. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronics, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrival system of any nature without the written permission of the copyright owner.

By using this site, you (and any entity on whose behalf your are acting) are consenting to be bound by Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy & Disclaimer Clause.