Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Top 20 Landmark Supreme Court Important Judgments On Labour Law
Top 20 Landmark Supreme Court Important Judgments On Labour Law
Privacy
This websitewhile you navigate through the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as
Show more
Non-Necessary
Top 20 LandmEnaarkblSeudpreme Court & Important Judgments On Labour Law
Search
SUBSCRIBE TO LAWNN.COM
Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates
The Supreme Court held that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was a
beneficial piece of legislation which had been enacted by the
parliament in the best interest of the employees. Since it was a social
welfare legislation, therefore the courts have to adopt a beneficial rule
of construction.
It was further held that if two views arise in a case then the view which
is going to help the employees is to be taken. Thus, the newly amended
Section would apply to only the cases which had been instituted after
the amendment had been brought in.
II. APPROPRIATE
GOVERNMENT- CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT
The facts of the case are that the appellant company was a central
government company which was involved in manufacturing various
types of iron and steel materials in various states of India. The State
of West Bengal issued a notification prohibiting contract labour in
some specified stockyards of the appellants at Calcutta.
In the meanwhile, the contract laborers filed a petition before the high
court seeking directions for the appellants to absorb the Contract
Labourers in their regular establishment. The primary question for
determination, in this case, was as to who was the appropriate
government with regard to the Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short CLRA Act).
The Supreme Court held that any industry which was being run by
conferment of power or permission granted by the Central
Government to a Central Government Company or undertaking and if
due to the lack of the conferment power of power it would not be able
to operate then that company would be considered to be an industry
under the authority of the Central Government.
Thus the Supreme Court held that the Central Government was the
appropriate government under the CLRA Act.
STATE GOVERNMENT-
The Supreme Court while hearing the appeal filed by the Company
held that the appropriate government to refer the dispute was the
government of West Bengal since the branch of industry/company
carrying out the work in West Bengal was a separate unit.
The workers were being paid at the branch and they were directly under
the control of the officers of the company at that branch. In situations
where there was a disturbance of industrial peace and a number of
workmen were working, the appropriate government concerned for
raising the dispute and maintaining industrial peace was the West
Bengal government.
In this case, the dispute was between employees of the Bangalore water
supply and sewerage board and its management. The petitioners raised
an objection before the Labour Court that it was not an industry and
therefore the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to try the case.
While hearing the Appeal, the Supreme Court laid down a test for
declaring an entity as an Industry. It was held that in order to qualify
as an industry the following requisites have to be fulfilled:
V. Definition of EMPLOYER-
6. HUSSAINBHAI V. ALATH
FACTORY TEZHILALI UNION AIR
1978 SC 1410
In this case, the Petitioner was the owner of a factory and he was
involved in the business of manufacturing ropes. He had hired
independent contractors who had in turn hired workmen for carrying
out the work. A dispute was raised by the Respondent which was a
Trade Union against the petitioner on the ground that certain workers
were refused work by the Petitioner.
The Supreme Court while hearing the appeal held that in cases where
the employees produce goods and services for the business of another
person, then this another person would be an employer. In order to find
out as to whether he is an employer or not it has to be seen that
whether there is economic control upon the workers and whether there
was continued employment.
The Supreme Court while hearing the appeal filed by the Appellant
held that the appellant was indeed a workman as per the definition
enshrined in Sec 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was
further held that person would not to be a workman if he is having
certain supervisory duties.
It was held by the Supreme Court that in order to find that whether a
person was working in a managerial or supervisory capacity is a
question of fact and as such the nature of his duties has to be seen.
It was further held that the claimant in the instant matter was a
workman since he was not employed in a managerial or administrative
work. It was clarified that where person is vested with the power of
assigning duties and distributing the work amongst other employees
would qualify as a supervisor.
It was further held that a Strike is the result of the long struggle
between the employers and employees and it is a weapon of last
resort and withdraws the labour from working in the Enterprise. It is
an abnormal act and therefore the Industrial Disputes Act seeks to
regulate the concept of Strike while not denying the right of the
workmen to carry out a strike.
It became impossible for the petitioners to carry out the business and
they duly applied to the Government/Respondent for the closure of
the
undertaking. The government refused to allow the closure of the
undertaking. Aggrieved by the order passed by the
Government/Respondent, the Appellant’s challenged it.
It was held by the Supreme Court that the right to business is not the
same to start or carry on a business; it would be not justified to place
these two at the same footing. If a person does not start a business
then he cannot be compelled to begin it full stop that the right to close
down a business is not an absolute one can be restricted and regulated
by way of the law.
They cannot be put to risk at the cost of their life and property.
VIII. RETRENCHMENT-
In this case, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the claimant by the
Appellant Company for some misconduct an inquiry was held. It was
found that he was not a fit person to be kept in the establishment. As
such his services were terminated by the Appellant.
It was held by the Bombay High Court that since the services of the
claimant were terminated in lieu of the disciplinary proceedings and his
misconduct, thus there was no retrenchment in the instant case.
Therefore no question of compensation arose. Retrenchment happens
when a person is relieved in good faith and not as a punishment for
disciplinary action.
The Labour Court held that the appropriate government was the
government of West Bengal. Thus aggrieved by the order the Appellant
filed an appeal before the High Court of Calcutta.
While hearing the appeal the High Court held that the situs of
employment needs to be seen and it also needs to be kept in mind as
to where the dispute arose.
It was held that the order of transfer was made to Bombay and just
because the order of termination was presented at Calcutta cannot give
a cause of action to the state of West Bengal to refer the dispute for
adjudication.
The control over the employee does not matter solely but the last situs of
employment is important before referring a dispute to the Industrial
Tribunal.
XI. SETTLEMENT-
The facts of the case are that during the course of conciliation
proceedings with regard to a dispute between the
Management/Appellant and its Workmen/Respondent a settlement
was arrived at between the parties.
Aggrieved by the order, the Appellant filed a writ before the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court, in this case, dealt exhaustively with
section 17 of the working journalist act.
In this case, the petitioner was a driver in the Delhi Police Force, and
he claimed that his salary was not at par with the salary of other drivers
employed in the Delhi administration. It was submitted by him that the
drivers of the Delhi Police carry out the same functions as drivers of
the other departments.
It was held by the Supreme Court that the principle of equal pay for
equal work was not explicitly provided for in the constitution and
therefore it was not accorded the status of a fundamental right.
However article 39 (d) of the Constitution which provides for equal
pay for equal work for both men and women is accorded the status of
a directive principle of State Policy.
It was held by the Supreme Court that the petition was maintainable
and the state government was under an obligation to rectify it’s failure
of ensuring the compliance of the labour laws.
It was further held that the workmen were being held in bondage and
were being made to work in miserable conditions and as such the
fundamental rights of the workmen were being curtailed. It was held
that the right to live with dignity is a part and parcel of article 21 and
the same is to be ensured by the state.
XV. MISCELLANEOUS-
18. People’s Union for Democratic
Rights v. Union of India, 1982 AIR
1473 SC
In this case a Public Interest Litigation was filed by PUCL before the
Supreme Court on the basis of a report made by three social scientist
on the workers who were engaged for various projects in relation to
the Asian games. They had found in their report that the Labour laws
were being contravened by the contractors and the State.
It was held by the Supreme Court that the contractors who had been
hired by the government had committed serious violations of the
labour laws. It was observed that the minimum wages were not being
paid to the workers and there was also disparity in the wages which
was being given to the male and female workers.
It was held that the workers were being forced into labour by working
under a compulsion to take wages lesser than the minimum rate fixed
the government. As such the state was failing in its duty to ensure that
the social welfare legislations were being complied with. It was held
that it is an obligation on the state to ensure and take measures for the
purpose of tackling such violations and ensuring that the fundamental
right is not transgressed.
The matter was appealed before the Supreme Court and it was held
that the regulation of the corporation to terminate permanent
employee by giving them a notice or one month’s pay in lieu of notice
without assigning a reason or giving an opportunity of hearing to the
employee was against the principles of natural justice.
In this cas,e the Respondent was a bank which had reduced the
contributions to the provident fund and restricted itself as per the
statutory norm. The Appellants raised a dispute before Industrial
Tribunal due to reduction in the contribution made by the Appellant.
The Industrial Tribunal found the act of the Respondent as a
contravention of the law.
Thus the Appellants filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court held that the action of the Respondents was not in
contravention of the law since they had not stopped the contributions
but rather they had limited the contributions to the amount which was
required by the statute to be paid.
Previous article
Next article
Features & Provisions of Micro, A Detailed Insight On The General
Small and Medium Enterprises Exceptions under Indian
(MSME) sector in India Penal Code (IPC)
LEAVE A REPLY
Name:*
Email:*
Website:
Post Comment
© lawnn.com