Phool

Chand Vs
Assistant
Labour BY: ARSHITA SHARMA
Commission BBA 3 YEAR
1950344
er
 CONTENTS
1. Case Introduction
2. Allegations by Phool
Chand
3. Contention of the
Respondent Management
4. Points to be Noted
5. Decision of the Court
6. Laws/Acts
 Case regarding
(i) unauthorized deductions
(ii) delay in payment of wages.

You are not allowed in What about my

the factory, your job payment? You haven’t
has been terminated paid my wages yet.
What are the reasons
that petitioner didn’t get
his wages?

Why he was not allowed

to enter the factory
premises and terminated
from his job?
ALLEGATIONS BY PHOOL CHAND

NOT ALLOWED IN
THE FACTORY

DIDN’T GET
PAYMENT OF WAGES

TERMINATED HIM
FROM THE JOB
CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT
MANAGEMENT

ABSENT ON HIS CONDUCTED

DUTY ENQUIRY

DIDN’T ATTEND THE NO WORK NO

ENQUIRY WAGES
 1. The petitioner not allowed to
enter the premises of the

INT S establishment
PO 2. The petitioner had failed to

T O BE participate in the enquiry

proceedings,
NOTED 3. Withdrawn the cases
4. Wasting the time of the
authorities/ courts
 DECISION OF THE COURT

Dismissed the application for payment of wages from

March, 2007 till the date of filing of the petition
lAW S/ACT
S
❏ Article 227 of
the constitution of India
❏ U/S 15(2) of
the PWA, 1936
❏ C.R. No. 3647
of 2011 (O&M) [4]
❏ U/S 10 (1) of
the IDA, 1947,
❏ U/S 33-C(2) of
the IDA, 1947,
BIBLIOGRAPHY

CASE STUDY PDF