DECIDED CASES ON THE

INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEMNET
ACT

SUBMITTED BY
VISHAL(46)
 CASE 1-TRANPORT MNAGER vs.
VILAS SANU DEOKAR AND OTHERS
 Three petitions challenge the order of the
Industrial Court whereby the petitioners were
directed to pay subsistence allowance to the
respondents, who were admittedly Badli worker
 The respondents were 'Badli' workmen
employed as drivers with the petitioners
 The Industrial Court, on the basis of the
contentions raised before it, held that the
petitioner-employer wasguilty of unfair labour
practice
 Issuance of no duty order on account of an
enquiry being held against the Badli workmen
would amount to suspension, cannot be
accepted and, therefore, the question of paying
subsistence allowance to the respondents does
not arise
 The order of the Industrial Court, therefore was
set aside.
CASE2-STATESMAN CLERICAL STAFF
AND WORKER’S UNION vs. STATE OF
WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS

 Dispute regarding application or interpretation

of Standing orders.
 No Draft Standing Orders for the Non-
Journalists Employees of the Statesman Ltd., was
submitted by the company.
 The writ was not maintainable because An
alternative remedy was available under section
10
 CASE 3- MANAGEMENT OF
CONTINENTAL CONST. vs. WORKMEN
OF CONTINENTAL CONST.
 Four workmen were transferred.
 These transfers were ignored by them for
months despite of managements reminders.
 By single judge- judgment company was asked
to reinstate them and to pay 50% back wages.
 Company challenged the order .
 The division bench of high court found
workmen to be guilty.
CASE4-TAMIL NADU NATIONAL MINE
WORKER’S UNION AND ANOTHER vs.
TAMIL NADU MINERALS LTD.

 Petitioner workmen were transferred to other

establishment
 Sought quashing by writ petition
 Dismissal of petition by high court
 Company was empowered such an order
 “Clause 13”

 Transfer from one establishment to the other

establishment: All workmen are liable for
transfer from one type
 of work to the other type, one pit to the other,
one face to the other, one establishment to the
other as per
 exigencies of work without prejudice to their
service conditions. Refusal to obey such
posting
 CASE5-N.D.M.C vs. MOHD. SHAMIM
AND OTHERS
 The respondent No.2 herein was appointed as
a Khalasi. He has been working in the
Electricity Departmentof the petitioner herein.
 Admittedly, there did not exist any certified
standing order in relation to the said
establishment
 According to the respondents, as no certified
standing orders existed, model standing orders
would be deemed to be applicable
 The respondent No.2 was relieved from the
services.
 But as per model standing order he was not a
permanent employee as he has not completed 3
years with the company .
 Thus his application was not entertained.
THANK YOU !!!!!!!!