ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985—
Section 19—Writ petition—Alternative remedy—Maintainability of petition —Petition before High Court directly without availing alternative remedy—Therefore, not maintainable—Dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) (Sum.) 7
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RULES, 1952—
Chapter VIII, Rule 5—Special appeal—Award passed by CGIT awarding appointment to kin of R. from date of his retirement with all consequential benefits—Proceedings before Single Judge arose out of Award by Tribunal—Special appeal—Issues can be raised before Single Judge—Preliminary objection accepted—Appeal dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 783
APPOINTMENT AND SENIORITY—
Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition—Division Bench remitted the matter to Single Judge for moulding the relief—Hence, the present appeal by petitioner—Held, the Division Bench should have consider the appeal(s) on merits by deciding on the correctness of the judgment of learned Single Judge, instead of remitting the matter—Appellant would be entitled to get appointment only w.e.f. 1.8.2018 without giving any benefit of seniority—However, it would not be treated as a precedent—Appeals disposed of., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) (Sum.) 4
APPOINTMENT—
Appellant sought a mandamus before High Court to treat his ad hoc appointment as an appointment on permanent basis and for direction to release his salary—Dismissal—Legality—Appellant appointed purely on ad hoc basis in a leave vacancy in institution—Therefore, on death of regularly appointed candidate—Leave vacancy ceased to exist—Thus, once a substantive vacancy arose it was required to be filled up in accordance with law—Appellant had no right or entitlement—To claim that his appointment on an ad hoc basis in leave vacancy should be converted into substantive appointment—Therefore, view taken by High Court cannot be faulted with—However, direction issued to fill up post on a regular basis expeditiously—Appellant, having regard to facts and circumstances of case allowed to continue purely on ad hoc basis until a regularly appointed candidate selected—Salary of appellant ordered to be paid for the period he works until appointment of a regular candidate—Appeal disposed of.
, 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 510
APPOINTMENT—
—Post in Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service—272 posts advertised—Petitioner ranked at 68th position—Denied appointment on ground that he was convicted for committing offence punishable under section 307, I.P.C.—In a case where charges are not of trivial nature and the candidate has been convicted—Employer has discretion to cancel the candidature—Order granting stay of conviction of petitioner does not discuss merits of the appeal—High Court stayed conviction on sole fact that petitioner has cleared the selection and if stay was not granted, he would be deprived of appointment—Such an order of stay of conviction can hardly inure in favour of a candidate who is convicted of an offence and his appeal has not been decided—No discussion that appellant has a strong prima facie case in his appeal—Order of the State denying appointment to petitioner reasonable—Impugned order and directions of the single Judge set aside—Writ petition dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Raj. H.C.) 73
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL (PROCEDURE) RULES, 2008—
Rule 18—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Petition—To declare Rule 18 as ultra vires—Sustainability of—Central Government had legislative competence to make said Rules—There was neither any violation of rights guaranteed under Constitution of India—Nor any provisions of Constitution of India violated— Further, neither Central Government failed to conform to statute under which rules made—Nor exceeded limit of authority—Rule 18 of Rules, 2008, thus, not repugnant to law of land—No manifest arbitrariness or unreasonableness in not giving any power to condone delay to Tribunal while reviewing its judgment—Thus, none of the grounds raised by petitioner seeking to challenge Rule 18 of Rules, 2008 within parameters of grounds laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court to challenge vires of Rule—Petition dismissed.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.–L.B.) (Sum.) 21
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL (PROCEDURE) RULES, 2008—
—Rule 18—Review—Application for—Delay condonation—Power of Tribunal—Specific bar to an application for review being entertained—Unless review filed within 30 days from date of receipt of copy of order sought to be reviewed—Thus, no power to condone delay in filing a review application given to Tribunal—Petition dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.–L.B.) (Sum.) 21
AWARD—
Appellants/workmen were appointed on a contingent basis as “Nursing Orderlies”—For period of 89 days to Group-D posts on a daily wage basis on 29.11.2011—By Medical Superintendent MBH—Appellants filed application before CAT seeking regularization which was dismissed on 29.4.2003—More than two years thereafter their services terminated “on basis of last come first go policy”—By award, it was held that services of appellants had been terminated abruptly without following procedure and in violation of section 25-F of I.D. Act—Single Judge set aside the award—However, impugned orders of Single Judge are hereby set aside and award holding the termination to be bad in law is hereby restored with backwages., 2019 (163) FLR (Del. H.C.) 1065
AWARD—
—Challenged—Controversy is for regularisation of services of respondents—Respondents were engaged on temporary/work charge basis with the petitioner institution—As the respondent number 7, State Government impleaded herein was not impleaded as party before Labour Court—As such this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction of original authority—Therefore, respondent No. 7, be impleaded as party in the case and same shall be decided after affording opportunity to it—Impugned award is set aside—Matter is remitted back to Labour Court to decide afresh., 2019 (163) FLR (Utt. H.C.) 990
AWARD—
—Delay and laches in challenging it—Delay of 4-1/2 years in challenging it by Management—Writ Court condoned the delay, without recording any reasons—Condonation of delay—Set aside., 2019 (163) FLR (P&H H.C.) (Sum.) 17
AWARD—
—Ex parte award—Challenged by petitioner—Ex parte award passed by Tribunal against the petitioner-employer—Set aside in petition—And matter is remanded back to Tribunal to decide it afresh—After affording opportunity to petitioner-company and to workman., 2019 (163) FLR (H.P. H.C.) 1053
AWARD—
—Judicial review—Workman appointed as Beldar—Carried out work as Laboratory Assistant—But pay-scale of said post not given—Work of Laboratory Assistant at relevant time was not being taken from workman—Hence, award allowing claim of workman—Was illegal and contrary to evidence on record hence set aside., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 204
AWARD—
—Modification of award passed by Labour Court/Tribunal—Sought by petitioner-Union—To the extent that workmen be granted full back wages—It could not be said that there was no evidence on record of unemployment of
AWARD—
workmen during period they were disengaged by management—This important aspect has been ignored by Tribunal—Hence, this petition is allowed and award is modified to the extent that workmen are held to be entitled to back wages—However, at the time of execution the management can bring the fact of settlement by some workmen to the notice of the Executing Court., 2019 (163) FLR (H.P. H.C.) 295
AWARD—
—Once the award interfered with by this Court and modified in a writ petition by way of a judgment/order—Award stands merged with order of this Court rendered in writ petition—It would apply on good and sensible analogy if not in stricto sensu., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 812
AWARD—
—Order passed by Labour Court—High Court upheld the award passed directing reinstatement of workman in service—As the respondent has worked for more than 240 days and it is held that he was entitled for protection of labour laws—Being a finding of fact the Court is not inclined to interfere—State failed to produce any evidence before Labour Court—Labour Court had no option but to proceed ex parte against the State and to pass award on basis of evidence led by workman—Hence, appeal dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 641
AWARD—
—Passed by C.G.I.T.—Holding that the workman is entitled to continue in service till the date of superannuation according to Matriculation certificate and to get all the benefits in the manner as he is continuing in service till that date—Challenged by writ petition—Matriculation certificate issued prior to the date of employment shall be treated to be correct—Employer has no other alternative but to accept the said certificate to be true and correct—Tribunal was justified in accepting the date of birth recorded in Matriculation certificate to be valid—Award also does not suffer from any perversity—Petition therefore, dismissed.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Cal. H.C.) 448
AWARD—
—Passed by Labour Court, ordering reinstatement of respondent No. 2 with continuity of service and all benefits including the wages from the date of award—Respondent No. 2 was a watchman in corporation on 21.7.1983 and continued till 9.8.1985—Labour Court has rightly held that once respondent No. 2 was discharging his services regularly—Then his abandoning services on 10.8.1985 cannot be a reasonable cause of his services coming to an end—Hence, compensation granted to respondent No. 2 in lieu of relief given in impugned award—Upholding the relief given to respondent No. 2 vide award—Relief of reinstatement is substituted to compensation of ` 1,00,000/-., 2019 (163) FLR (Raj. H.C.–J.B.) 172
AWARD—
—Passed by Labour Court—By impugned order dated 28.8.2014—Holding that respondent-employees fall under category of permanent employees and they are entitled for all benefits for same—Labour Court has erred in accepting the version of respondent-employees and also erred in drawing adverse inference against the corporation—Impugned award is therefore, legally unsustainable on other grounds also—Findings returned by Labour Court are based upon no legal admissible evidence and are wholly perverse—Cannot be sustained., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 207
AWARD—
—Passed by Labour Court—Challenged by petitioner daily wager—In the award respondent has referred to a copy of service book produced by petitioner, wherein period of working mentioned w.e.f. November, 1989 to August, 1991—He has also referred to documentary evidence filed by Department and oral statements—Petitioner was not retrenched or illegally terminated—Petitioner could not prove that he had worked for 240 days—Petitioner could not prove his allegations regarding his juniors having been retained—Hence, the award passed by Labour Court being well reasoned—Cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.–L.B.) 535
AWARD—
—Passed by Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal—Awarding a lumpsum compensation of ` 50,000/- in favour of workman in lieu of back wages, seniority, past service benefit as well other consequential service benefits—Challenged by petitioner workman—Respondent failed to prove abandonment of job by workman—He has actually worked for 416 days and after termination fresh hands were engaged, despite petitioner being available for job—However, workman issued notice after 14 years of alleged retrenchment—Labour Court can award compensation even if there is delay in raising the dispute—Labour Court rightly awarded compensation—No reason found to interfere with., 2019 (163) FLR (H.P. H.C.) 1056
AWARD—
—Passed by Labour Court—Dismissal from service was subject-matter of challenge before Labour Court—Which was dismissed by Labour Court—Labour Court has rightly rejected his claim of reinstatement without back wages, keeping in mind the dishonest nature of petitioner—Even though domestic enquiry not conducted properly—Labour Court has rightly rejected his application under section 10-4 (A) of Act—No interference required with.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Kar. H.C.–K.B.) (Sum.) 12
AWARD—
—Passed by Labour Court—Dismissing the industrial dispute and connected cases by a common award—With a finding that the petitioner joined and worked under the company through contractors—And the contractors paid wages and the employees contribution and there was no relationship of employer-employee between the company and petitioner—And petitioner cannot seek any relief against the company as he has worked only under contractors engaged by company—Award challenged by the petitioner—However, principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of contract labour working in concerned establishment—There is no existence of employer-employee relationship between petitioner and third respondent—There is no error in applying the law prevailing as of now—Labour Court has rightly relied upon the legal principle settled by the Supreme Court—Common award passed by Labour Court is confirmed and writ petition dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Mad. H.C.) 953
AWARD—
—Passed by Labour Court—Holding that the workman was not entitled for any relief—As there was no evidence on record to demonstrate that the workman was employee of management/respondent—However, as the petitioner failed to establish relationship of master and servant between him and the respondent-corporation—It cannot be said that the Court below has erred in not granting relief is his favour—Accordingly, this petition challenging the award in dismissed—Industrial Disputes Act, 1947—Section 25-F., 2019 (163) FLR (H.P. H.C.) 704
AWARD—
—Res judicata—Labour Court has fully misdirected itself by considering a non applicable decision of Apex Court in matter in respect of res-judicata.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Cal. H.C.) 387
AWARD—
—Resignation by workman—In view of settlement arrived at between parties—However, in view of evidence of workman and W.W. 2, the impugned award, so far it directs payment of ` 1,44,677 with interest—Has no basis and evidence—Cannot be sustained and set aside—Hence, the impugned award is modified accordingly., 2019 (163) FLR (Del. H.C.) (Sum.) 8
AWARD—
—Termination of petitioner, a casual worker, daily wager engaged for temporary work—No retrenchment compensation paid—Section 25-F of I.D. Act not complied with—He has worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination—There is gap of 21 years since his termination—Hence, the award of lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement—Enhanced to ` 10,000/- from ` 50,000/-., 2019 (163) FLR (Guj. H.C.) (Sum.) 10
AWARD—
—Workman was dismissed from service after conducting enquiry—No opportunity of cross-examination of witnesses of management given to workman—Enquiry Officer himself became prosecutor—No notice to workman of enquiry—Enquiry is therefore, vitiated—Dismissal order therefore set aside—Findings of Labour Court are perverse—New facts introduced not on record and considered by Labour Court—Hence, matter remanded back to Labour Court for disposal afresh—Award set aside., 2019 (163) FLR (P&H H.C.) 164
AWARD—
—Writ petitions filed by both the workman and the management—Challenging the award—Workman daily rated salesman with Management and had rendered 25 years of service—He was dismissed on misconduct and on charges of causing loss to assets of stores and failed to maintain integrity and devotion to duty—The management having slept over for decades, awakened from slumber and issued charges against workman—Charges are not established in domestic enquiry—Labour Court ought to have granted reinstatement with full back wages—Hence, the workman was not guilty at all—This Court cannot reappreciate the evidence and came to different conclusion., 2019 (163) FLR (Mad. H.C.) 307
BONDED LABOUR SYSTEM (ABOLITION) ACT, 1976—
Inter State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979—Central Sector Scheme for Rehabilitation of Bonded Labourers, 2016—Writ Petition (PIL) filed—By inviting attention of Court to violation of international law obligations—Commitment of Central Government is to fulfill the obligation under the Scheme—District Magistrates are required to submit the claims for release of funds under the Scheme—Even this has not been done—As such the Secretary is directed to ensure the Constitution of Committee and nominate the Inspector under the Scheme—Entire process for enforcing and providing benefits under Schemes and Act, be completed within one month.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Tri. H.C.) 361
CHILD AND ADOLESCENT LABOUR (PROHIBITION AND REGULATION) ACT, 1986—
Section 10—Writ petition—Against the order passed by Dy. Labour Commissioner, imposing penalty upon petitioner and recovery certificate issued for—Complaint filed alleging that petitioner was found employing one child labour—Who was medically examined and his age determined as 21 years but it was not considered by Dy. Labour Commissioner—Alleged child was not examined by Medical Board—Inspector has committed manifest error—Hence, the order imposing penalty would be vitiated and cannot be sustained—Set aside.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.–L.B.) 224
CHILD AND ADOLESCENT LABOUR (PROHIBITION AND REGULATION) ACT, 1986—
—Sections 14 and 11—Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Rules, 1988—Rule 17—Conviction—Revision—In the complaint case except photocopy of alleged inspection memo, no other document was filed by complainant before the Court below—Mandatory provisions of Rule 17 of Rules not complied with to ascertain the age of child labourers—Consequently there was no material to ascertain the age of child labourers—Prosecution could not prove the age of alleged child labourers employed by accused—The accused-revisionist cannot be held guilty of offence alleged against him— Place of commercial organization of revisionist could not be specifically established by complainant—Conviction and sentence awarded to revisionist is set aside., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 214
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908—
Section 24—Transfer of case—High Court cannot pass orders transferring case pending before Court subordinate to it—To another Court subordinate to different High Court., 2019 (163) FLR (Bom. H.C.–A.B.) (Sum.) 7
CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS—
Regulations 351, 351-A and 351-AAA—Two provisions for withholding or withdrawing pension in Regulation 351, 351-A and 351-AAA come into play where Government servant is convicted in a crime or found guilty of misconduct and not mere pendency of any departmental or judicial proceedings—Gratuity is ordinarily included in pension as one of its component otherwise separate from it—A Government employee not entitled to death-cum-retirement gratuity till conclusion of departmental proceedings—Law laid down in Jai Prakash is the correct law., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.–F.B.) 272
COLLECTION AMIN—
Relaxation in age—Regularisation—U.P. Collection Amin Service Rules, 1974—Rule 31—Rule 31 confers power upon the Government to relax any Rule regarding “Conditions of Service” if it is causing any undue hardship in a particular case—Power of framing rules is in respect of “recruitment” and conditions of service—Recruitment rules are applicable upto the stage of appointment—Once the person is appointed the rules relating to continuance in service become applicable—In the present case since power has been conferred upon the Government only to relax rules relating to conditions of service, rules pertaining to age cannot be relaxed—When rules applicable to concerned service do not empower the Government to relax rules pertaining to recruitment any direction to Government to pass a speaking order on represention of employee seeking relaxation in rules pertaining to recruitment would not be justified—Impugned judgment of the Single Judge cannot be sustained—Appeal allowed.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) (Sum.) 7
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT—
Claimant petitioner was married but marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce—If on the date of claim for compassionate appointment, the daughter is not married, she could fulfil the eligibility criteria—State cannot reject application on ground that she was married and not unmarried., 2019 (163) FLR (Raj. H.C.) 758
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT—
—Fundamental principle—There is no inherent right to obtain a compassionate appointment—However, compassionate appointment has to be in accordance with existing policy—In this case, application for compassionate appointment considered under new policy and options available offered to respondent—And offer of solatium could be only remedy available at this stage—Solatium of ` 5 lakhs be paid to respondent., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 636
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT—
—Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956—Section 16 (2)—Compassionate appointment claimed on the ground of adoption—Held, deed of adoption had not been appended alongwith writ petition or the special appeal—Learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition—No merits in the appeal—Dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) (Sum.) 5
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT—
—Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Compassionate Appointment Regulation, 2010—Regulation 4(3)—Declared—Declared by the High Court as violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India—Appeal—Apex Court is not in agreement with judgment passed by High Court—Two categories of dependents cannot be treated as equals—Regulation 4(3) is not violative of Article 14 of Constitution—Respondent has received compensation under the Act—He is not entitled for compassionate appointment under Regulations., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 824
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT—
—University granted temporary appointment to the petitioner—Learned Single Judge allowed the petition—Hence the present special appeal by the University COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT—
—Held, learned Single Judge had recorded cogent reasons—Impugned judgment and order did not suffer from any infirmity or illegality—Special appeal lacked merit—Dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) (Sum.) 6
COMPENSATION—
Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923—Deceased was on duty as driver—And taking load of iron—He was in continuation of his job and taking rest under a tree—He suffered a heart attack and died—Death was due to strain in discharging duty of driver—Commissioner has rightly awarded compensation.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Kar. H.C.) (Sum.) 13
COMPENSATION—
—Order passed by Commissioner, and awarded compensation of ` 3,38,880/- with interest @ 12% to respondents—Respondents No. 1 to 10 are widow mother, four sons and four daughters of deceased—Who was working as a cleaner/helper with respondent No. 11 on his vehicle—And died due to work stress arising out of and during course of his employment—When he was unwell and compelled to go an out of station duty—Therefore, the legal representatives of deceased are entitled for compensation—There is no merit in appeal which is dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Del. H.C.) 268
COMPULSORY RETIREMENT—
As punishment—For misconduct—Order of Tribunal holding departmental inquiry as vitiated not challenged by petitioner—And inquiry once held vitiated, Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine guilt and punishment both—Tribunal found that charges not proved—Hence, Tribunal has directed reinstatement with full back wages and all consequential benefits—Award requires modification and modified to 50% of back wages., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) (Sum.) 5
CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS—
Challenged in the appeals—Is the order passed by Armed Forces Tribunal directing the appellants that facts should be correctly entered in reports and A.C.R. be expunged as a whole—However, direction of Tribunal to correct the After Action Report or other reports—Cannot be sustained—And therefore set aside—Reports prepared during action and after war are confidential—Tribunal or the Court is not the Authority to appreciate the historical facts., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 634
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950—
Article 21—Speedy justice—Is one of the fundamental rights of a person—As guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India—Deciding a preliminary issue will waste the valuable time of the Court., 2019 (163) FLR (Utt. H.C.) 342
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950—
—Article 226—Companies Act, 2013—Section 178—Quashing of charge-sheet—Petition for—Sustainability—Section 178 of Act, 2013 has no role to play with respect to initiation of disciplinary proceedings—It will come into picture only at time of imposition of penalty—Thus, M.D. and CEO clearly empowered and authorised under delegation of authority as well as standards of conducts and performance of H.R. Policy (P.L.L.)—To initiate disciplinary proceedings including issuance of charge-sheet and appointment of Inquiry Committee against petitioner, an Officer of President level and senior most permanent employee of company Petronet (LNG—However, CVC directed to initiate enquiry into allegations made by petitioner., 2019 (163) FLR (Del. H.C.) 604
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950—
—Article 226—Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952—Writ petition—Seeking early disposal of representation for payment EPF dues in instalments—No objection raised by Standing Counsel—EPF Authority is directed to consider such request—However, no coercive step shall be taken by EPF Authority., 2019 (163) FLR (Ker. H.C.) 509
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950—
—Article 226—Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972—Sections 2(s), 4 and 7—Claim of Gratuity—Withholding of—Petitioner is employee of respondent-company—Petitioner is entitled to gratuity amount—Which cannot be withheld under any circumstances—Financial hardship cannot be a ground to withhold emoluments
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950—
of an employee—Under the circumstances, respondents are directed to positively disburse the remaining amount of gratuity to petitioner—Petitioner shall be entitled to all statutory interest., 2019 (163) FLR (Tri. H.C.) 359
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950—
—Article 226—Quashing of ex parte report of Inquiry Committee and charge-sheet—Petition for—Maintainability of petition—Respondent company a ‘Public Limited Company’—Company formed as joint venture company by Government—Thus, is an instrumentality of Government coming under perview “other authorities” of “State”—Therefore, petition maintainable., 2019 (163) FLR (Del. H.C.) 604
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950—
—Article 226—Writ petition—Against order passed by Controlling Authority—No reason found to issue writ of certiorari—Writ Court having very limited jurisdiction., 2019 (163) FLR (Jhr. H.C.) 1040
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950—
—Article 226—Writ petition—Filed after the suit was dismissed in default—Hence, filing of writ petition, without mentioning anything about the suit—Amounts to suppression of material facts—Writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone., 2019 (163) FLR (Ker. H.C.) 253
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950—
—Article 226—Writ petition—Filed against impugned order passed by Chairman, U.P. Industrial Co-operative Association —Cancelling its earlier order—Appeal cannot be assumed, hence appellate order passed by Chairman on 28.8.1998 treating representation as an appeal was wholly without jurisdiction—It has rightly been cancelled by subsequent order—No illegality found in impugned order to justify interference—Having set legal position straight—Still this Court declines to interfere where equity justifies the same—Hence, the Court unable to interfere with impugned order—And petition dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 178
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950—
—Articles 226 and 12—2nd respondent is a company under Companies Act—Government of Uttarakhand does not own any share in company—Employees of company are governed by Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and U.P. Industrial Employment Model Standing Orders, 1991—2nd respondent is rightly held as not an instrumentality of State under Article 12 of Constitution—It is a private Limited Company carrying on business.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Utt. H.C.) 768
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950—
—Article 227—Jurisdiction under—Is a limited jurisdiction—Power is akin to that of an ordinary Court of appeal—Yet the power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly—Unless the three ingredients established, Court should be loath to exercise such jurisdiction., 2019 (163) FLR (Utt. H.C.) 341
CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION AND ABOLITION) ACT, 1970—
Sections 7, 12 and 23—Award—Passed by Labour Court, Pondicherry—Held, that in absence of valid contract, the workers doing house keeping work will be treated as workers of petitioner—They are not regular workers of petitioners but Labour Court directed petitioner to continuously engage the said workers—However, if management or contractor has violated provisions of Act, the person who violates can be prosecuted—Labour Court erred in directing the petitioner to give continuous work to said workers—Impugned award is therefore, set aside—Petition Allowed., 2019 (163) FLR (Mad. H.C.) 154
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950—
—Section 10—Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 226 and 227—Order passed by Single Judge challenged in this Letters Patent Appeal by petitioner-workers’ Union representing the contract labourers engaged by respondent Essar Steel Ltd.—And had prayed the respondent Government to reconsider the question of prohibition of contract labour system in all 38 trade activities and refusing to prohibit the contract labour system in three activities and declaring the same to
CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION AND ABOLITION) ACT, 1970—
be contrary to law and in violation of principles of natural justice, arbitrary and capricious—However, it is held that the action under section 10 of Act is a quasi legislative action—There is no need of observing principles of natural justice—And principles of natural justice cannot be said to have been violated so as to vitiate the proceedings before the authority—Hence, appeal is liable to be dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Guj. H.C.) 551
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950—
—Sections 10 (1) and (2)—Notification dated 7.2.2011—Challenged by petitioner-management—By notification the State cancelled the contract labour system in KPCL/ESOM in shift engineers/operators division—In issuing notification, there is non-compliance of statutory provisions of section 10(1) and (2) of Act—In absence of any ingredients in criteria as mentioned in section 10 of Act—Hence, the notification dated 7.2.2011 is set aside., 2019 (163) FLR (Kar. H.C.) 706
CONTRACTUAL APPOINTMENT—
Appointment of Anganbari Karyakatri on contract basis—Since appointment of petitioner governed by executive order or Scheme launched by Government—Therefore, such an appointment does not confer any status upon appointee.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) (Sum.) 23
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973—
Section 482—Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 406 and 409—Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952—Para 38—Petition under section 482 seeking quashing of FIR registered under section 406 and 409 IPC—If there is delay in registration of FIR—It makes out no ground for quashing FIR and registration of FIR is not a misuse of process of law., 2019 (163) FLR (P&H H.C.) 753
DAILY WAGER—
Claim of benefit of permanency—Award—Claimants have worked with appellants for more than 17 years—Have worked for more than 240 days—Hence, Tribunal and Single Judge rightly held that claimants are entitled to benefit of permanency—Law laid down by Apex Court relied upon., 2019 (163) FLR (Guj. H.C.) 134
DAILY WAGER—
—Daily rated watchman if reinstated and working—Competent Authority to decide claims of workmen for regularization in order to curb further litigation—He is not entitled for back-wages nor for gratuity—On principle of “no work no wages”., 2019 (163) FLR (Bom. H.C.) 19
DEARNESS ALLOWANCE—
Payment of—By judgment and order under appeal High Court has held that there was no justification for making a distinction between pre-November, 2002 retirees and post- November, 2002 retirees and the appellant must pay dearness relief to all petitioners at same rate—However, the Supreme Court held that both categories of retirees, namely Pre-November, 2002 and post-November, 2002, stand on different footing—Parameters which govern the computation of dearness relief are also on different level—Decision rendered by High Court failed to appreciate these aspects and the decisions are completely erroneous—Assessment made by Madras High Court was absolutely correct., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) (Sum.) 20
DISABILITY PENSION—
Army Act, 1950—Army Rules—Rule 13(3)—Discharge from military service under Rule 13(3) of Army Rules—On account of being placed in low medical category—Disability pension denied—Denial of disability pension to appellant was misconceived—Disability element already been rounded off—Hence, appellant shall be granted arrears of disability pension in applicable rates.
, 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 828
DISCHARGE—
Transfer of petition against discharge—Transfer application filed by appellant dismissed by Armed Forces Tribunal—Order challenged—Appellant was enrolled in Army on 26.4.1991—His matriculation certificate was found not genuine—He was discharged from service on 10.7.1993—Exoneration in a Summary Court Martial is not a bar for initiation of proceeding for discharge—Appellant does not possess the requisite educational qualifications—He cannot be confirmed in service—Therefore, he has been rightly discharged from service—Army Act, 1950—Sections 44 and 20(3)—Army Rules—Rule 13.
, 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 822
DISCIPLINARY INQUIRY—
Penalty of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect—It is a case of discrimination—Co-employees have been exonerated—Appellant has been unduly penalised by award of penalty—Hence, impugned award cannot be said to be unjustified or illegal—Single Judge wrongly set aside the award passed by Labour Court—Hence, impugned order passed by Single Judge set aside—Appellant is entitled to all consequential benefits and interest @ 6%.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Raj. H.C.–J.B.) 1007
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS—
Services of petitioner terminated—For misconduct based on report of Enquiry Officer—Procedure in enquiry—Department has to establish charges against employee by adducing evidence oral and documentary—After receiving reply from petitioner—No date time or place for oral enquiry fixed—Two persons without any examination in chief, were allowed to be cross-examined by petitioner—Procedure applied for disciplinary enquiry was illegal—Hence, disciplinary enquiry declared as illegal—Impugned order is set aside—Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 771
DISMISSAL—
As punishment—2nd respondent was dismissed from service by petitioner-Management—Reference—Labour Court interfered with punishment impose on workman by Award—Directed reinstatement of 2nd respondent as interim measure and payment of salary—Award passed by Labour Court vitiated so far as it directs reinstatement with consequential benefits and for payment of 50% backwages—Permitted recovery of loss from dues of employee—If such recovery has been made, same shall not be returned by the Mill—Choice and quantum of punishment is within jurisdiction of employer—Petition partly allowed.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.–L.B.) 421
DISMISSAL—
—From service—After holding ex parte enquiry—On ground of unauthorised leave, absence—Implicated in criminal case—Reported for duties after granting bail—Convicted by Trial Court but acquitted in appeal—Appellant was gainfully employed and superannuated—Hence, Labour Court has rightly held that it is a fit case for compensation—No error apparent on face of record of infirmity or any jurisdictional error found—Hence, appeal dismissed—Order passed in writ petition is confirmed., 2019 (163) FLR (Mad. H.C.) (Sum.) 14
DISMISSAL—
—From service—By disciplinary authority—Of petitioner/ temporary worker from service—On ground of submitting false, forged document of educational qualification—In alleged transfer certificate name of school not printed and there was overwriting and name of school spelt wrongly—Address of school not mentioned in certificate—Certificate rightly concluded as not genuine certificate—All due procedures and steps adopted by disciplinary proceedings—Charges stood proved against petitioner—Hence, dismissal from service not bad—Petition dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Cal. H.C.) 226
DISMISSAL—
—From service—For committing offence by producing false certificate to get job—Transfer certificate not in name of respondent—But stand in name of another lady—However, person committing fraud by producing false certificate not deserve any compensation—Hence, award passed by Labour Court is set aside., 2019 (163) FLR (Kar. H.C.) (Sum.) 13
DISMISSAL—
—Oral inquiry—Major penalty of dismissal cannot be imposed in summary inquiry without holding any departmental inquiry and oral inquiry—Single Judge held as such—Appeal by Nagar Panchayat—Appellant failed to show any error in order of Single Judge—Appeal dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) (Sum.) 6
DISMISSAL—
—Unfair Labour Practice—Complaint—Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971—Misconduct—Dismissal from service—Challenged—Respondent a Conductor was found having collected ticket fare and had not issued any ticket to passengers—Labour Court partly allowed the complaint and granted relief of reappointment as a fresh appointee—Judgment of Labour Court is apparently perverse and erroneous—Since it cannot deliver the verdict that findings of Inquiry Officer are perverse—Entire inquiry stands vitiated—Hence, judgment delivered by Labour Court and Industrial Court stands quashed and set aside., 2019 (163) FLR (Bom. H.C.) 249
DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE—
Punishment of dismissal sanctioning leave without pay for period of absence—Voluntary retirement—Prayer for—Non-consideration of—Nobody can be forced to work against his wishes—If as per statute, prayer of an employee can be considered in accordance with law—Then it should not be dealt with in a harsh manner—Attitude of authority in considering prayer of petitioner—Not reasonable—Tribunal miserably failed to deal with this aspect—Impugned order of Tribunal set aside—Matter remitted to disciplinary authority for considering voluntary retirement of petitioner in accordance with law—Petition allowed., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.–L.B.) 16
DOMESTIC ENQUIRY—
Violation of principles of natural justice—Industrial Tribunal—If Industrial Tribunal had reached a conclusion good or bad—That there was a violation of principles of natural justice in the domestic inquiry—It was incumbent upon the Tribunal to take evidence itself and decide on merits, the worth of charges against the workman—Merely by holding as such, the Tribunal could not have granted final relief—Tribunal would do well to decide all issues together.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 801
EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923—
Sections 2(dd) and 2(e)—Petitioners-husband was employer as Safai Karmachari in bank—During service period he was electrocuted and died while using the generator set used for the bank—Her claim of compensation rejected holding that he was not an employee of bank—He was in self-employment—And his death had occurred not during the course of employment with Bank but during the course of self-employment—There is no legal or factual infirmity in the Order, hence her claim is dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.–L.B.) 217
EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923—
—Section 3—Accident occurred in the course of employment—Compensation—Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation determined the amount of compensation and directed the authorities of Central Water Commission to pay an amount of ` 7,02,180/- as compensation within a period of two months from the date of the order—Execution petition before Commissioner—Parties directed to approach the Civil Court for execution of award—Execution of award before
EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923—
the District Judge—Authorities submitted that necessary approval for the release of the compensation along with interest had been accorded by the Ministry of Water Resources—Assured that payment would be made within December, 2017—No payment made in December, 2017 but only on 19.1.2018—Claim for interest @ 12% made—Authorities directed the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority—Payment of interest could be made only after the Court order or approval of the Competent Authority—Application made before the Commissioner—Returned—Invoking of writ jurisdiction for direction upon the authorities to make payment of interest @ of 12% p.a. from the date of the accidental death till the date of final payment and penalty amounting to 50% of the principal amount of death as per section 4-A (3)(a)(b) of the 1923 Act—Authorities were in default in paying the compensation due under the Act within one month from the date it fell due—No justification for the delay in payment—Evidently provisions of section 4-A (3)(a)(b) of the 1923 Act attracted—Direction issued to make payment as per section 4-A (3)(a) and (b) of the 1923 Act of both the simple interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount due from the date of the accident till date of final payment as well as penalty of 50% of the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner within a period of three months—Petition allowed., 2019 (163) FLR (Sik. H.C.) 86
EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923—
—Section 3—Claim petition—Filed before Commissioner for workmen’s compensation under the Act—Where a Construction worker was attacked by some strangers in a construction site—Worker succumbed to his injuries—However, this Court is of the considered opinion that the incident which occurred on 1.9.2010, where the deceased worker was attacked, cannot be termed as an ‘accident’ within meaning of section 3 of Act—The ‘incident’ did not occur in the course of employment—Therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition—Consequently the judgment and award passed by Tribunal is quashed., 2019 (163) FLR (Kar. H.C.) 140
EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923—
—Section 3—Compensation—Accident—Claimant in order to prove her employment with 1st respondent did not produced any document before Tribunal but only oral evidence—Employee mandatorily has to prove by evidence that she was working under respondent—In absence of any oral and documentary evidence only oral assertion cannot be a ground to claim compensation—No substantial question of law made out to admit the appeal.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Kar. H.C.) 710
EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923—
—Sections 3, 4, 4-A and 4-A (3)—Order passed by E.C. Commissioner/A.L.C. rejecting to recall the orders passed in proceedings ex parte awarding compensation on its merits to employees—Petitioner found to be deliberately wanting to linger the proceedings and in fact position where claimant had suffered 100% disability and was not in a position to contest the proceedings further—And taking into account the larger interest of justice, the recall application has been rejected—No error found in the order—Hence, the petition dismissed—However, the petitioner can take recourse to other remedies available under law., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 881
EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923—
—Sections 3, 4, 4-A and 10—Appeal—Since deceased was serving as driver and driving of vehicle was as per instruction of employer—At the time of accident, he was working under the control of employer—Therefore, even if no notice was given of accident to the employer as per section 10(1)—Lack of notice cannot be bar to entertainment of claim—As per 5th proviso of section 10(1)—And as plea regarding lack of notice, not taken in W.S.—Such plea cannot be raised for first time in appeal., 2019 (163) FLR (Utt. H.C.) 983
EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923—
—Section 4-A—Scheme of—Explained., 2019 (163) FLR (Sik. H.C.) 87
EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923—
—Sections 4-A (1), (2), 3(a) and (b)—Claim of compensation—Penalty—Death during course of employment—Present appellant himself did not challenge the proceedings before Commissioner—He himself is liable to face consequences—Section provides that if Commissioner holds that if there is no justification for delay he may direct employer to pay by way of penalty 50% of the amount, in addition to amount of arrears and interest—It is discretion of Commissioner to impose penalty of 50% of amount of compensation—Commissioner has committed no error in imposing penalty of 50%., 2019 (163) FLR (Guj. H.C.) 563
EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923—
—Sections 30, 3 and 4—Appeal—Basic question required to be decided is as to whether ‘murder’ of deceased amounted to accident during course of employment—Dismissal of claim petition—Challenged—Trial Court has held that murder of deceased cannot be considered as “death during course of employment”—As the law laid down by Apex Court—When Abdul and respondent No. 1 were not lastly in company of deceased—Deceased was with truck when murdered—Then the peril suffered by deceased cannot be incidental to his employment—Hence, ultimate decision does not appear to be erroneous—No interference made with., 2019 (163) FLR (Bom. H.C.–A.B.) 912
EMPLOYEES’ PENSION SCHEME, 1995—
Relief—Sought against EPF Authority—For release of their pension—Employees would be entitled to pension from date, when he opts for pension—Gap can be filled up by executive instructions—And reduced pension shall be payable from date of receipt of Form 10-D, if employee not mentioned his option—Petitioner has been rightly granted pension—Hence, petition fails.
, 2019 (163) FLR (M.P. H.C.) 43
EMPLOYEES’ PENSION SCHEME, 1995—
—Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950—Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952—Departmental pension—Writ petitions—Order denying regular departmental pension assailed—Departmental pension denied on ground that he is drawing pension under EPF Scheme and not entitled to get regular departmental pension—However, petitioners were holding pensionable post and are entitled to get regular departmental pension—Hence, writ petitions are allowed—Orders impugned are quashed., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 662
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND—
Calculation—Representation made for correction of error of calculation—EPF Authority is directed to first finalize the representation at the earliest—Bank Account of petitioner attached without disposing of representation., 2019 (163) FLR (Ker. H.C.) 38
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND—
—Nominee—Can receive any amount lying to the credit of deceased’s account—But that amount can be claimed by other heirs of deceased—Respondent No. 5 nominee not participated in Court proceedings even after notice properly served upon him—Hence, payment of all amounts lying to credit of deceased shall be paid by EPF Authority to the petitioner., 2019 (163) FLR (Cal. H.C.) 446
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME, 1952—
Para 76—Non-filing of statutory return—Employer went into liquidation—Most employees adjusted in other departments—Amount deposited is lying with EPF Authority—EPF Authority under Para 76 of Scheme, has enough power to secure presence of employer—Members of petitioner’s association are not getting salary—Commissioner to complete exercise by securing the presence of Officer of State for release of amount., 2019 (163) FLR (M.P. H.C.) 948
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995—Para 2(xv), 9 and 10—Pensionable service and pensionable salary—Pensionable service be reckoned in terms of years as per Para 10 of Scheme—Para 10 of Scheme is nothing but reiteration of Para 2(xv) and Paras 12(1) and 9—Months not used anywhere in Scheme, 1995.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Bom. H.C.) 464
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Section 2 (e)—Employer—Does not include the Director of Company—Director of Company is not principal employer or owner—Petitioners have deposited the alleged EPF dues subsequently—Hence, offence as alleged against petitioner is quashed—However, delayed deposit of EPF dues is a criminal offence., 2019 (163) FLR (Cal. H.C.) 453
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Section 2 (f)—Driver and conductor—Even if employed by contractor of school bus—Covered by the definition under section 2(f) of Act., 2019 (163) FLR (Del. H.C.) 546
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Sections 5-A (1) and 5-C—Order of EPF Appellate Tribunal—Can be challenged in writ by only Board of Trustee—Not by Regional P.F. Commissioner—R.P.F.C. has no delegated power to file writ petition—He cannot be allowed to question the decision of his Appellate Authority., 2019 (163) FLR (Pat. H.C.) (Sum.) 17
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Section 7-A—E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997—Rule 7(2)—Determination of money due from employer—Appeal before Tribunal filed after a lapse of more than 300 days—There is no provision for entertaining appeal beyond 120 days—However, amounts determined already deposited by respondent which can be adjusted—The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside—Petition allowed., 2019 (163) FLR (P&H H.C.) 325
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Section 7-A—Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997—Rule 7—Appeal—Maintainability of beyond period of limitation —Tribunal cannot condone period of 120 days prescribed—Therefore the appeal filed beyond 120 days rightly rejected by Tribunal—However, in the interest of justice, petitioner is allowed to pay dues in six instalments., 2019 (163) FLR (Ker. H.C.) 440
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Section 7-A—EPF dues—A contract between the writ petitioner and 2nd respondent—Cannot have any binding effect—As far as the statutory authorities are concerned—If at all any such arrangement is in existence, the writ petitioner at the first instance has to pay the Competent Authority—As the same is statutory liability and recover it from the 2nd respondent-Air Port Authority.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Mad. H.C.) 725
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Section 7-A—Money due from employer—Determination of—Order under section 7-A of Act, the petitioner was liable for an amount w.e.f. August, 1982 to April, 2017—Appeal—Writ petition is disposed of by directing that till such time the appeal of petitioner is not processed and put up for hearing—No coercive steps be taken by respondent against petitioner., 2019 (163) FLR (P&H H.C.) 162
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Section 7-A—Order under and also an order of attachment of amount in petitioner’s account passed by A.P.F. Commissioner—Challenged by petitioner, a partner of partnership firm in writ petition—In view of fact, that decision making process in the case was contrary to settled principles of law—And was vitiated by failure on part of authority to act in terms of statute—Authority under section 7-A was required to collect more evidence for proper adjudication of dispute which would not be possible before the Appellate Tribunal—Hence, the order under section 7-A and order of attachment is hereby quashed and set aside—Matter is remanded back to A.P.F. Commissioner., 2019 (163) FLR (Cal. H.C.) 232
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Sections 7-A and 2(f)—Appeal filed by Commissioner against the judgment passed by High Court—Definition of employee under I.D. Act and one defined
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
under E.P.F. Act in question are not similar—Even their objects are also not identical—Since the High Court had not noticed the definition of employee as defined under section 2(f) of Act and proceeded to pass impugned order only in light of finding recorded in proceedings arising under I.D. Act, order is bad in law and cause for interference in this appeal—Impugned order is set aside—Case remanded to the High Court for deciding afresh., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 106
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Sections 7-A and 7-B—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Writ petition—Filed against the order passed under sections 7-A and 7-B—Without exhausting the appellate remedy provided under the Act—Hence, the writ petition is liable to be rejected., 2019 (163) FLR (Mad. H.C.) 724
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Sections 7-A and 19-A—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Writ petition—Filed challenging order passed under section 7-A of Act—Petitioner had not challenged order passed under section 7-A by filing appeal—And petitioner had not approached EPF Authority as per direction given in writ petition—EPF Authority is not ast fault—Petitioner is defaulter—Writ petition is dismissed—Recovery can be made in accordance with law., 2019 (163) FLR (Mad. H.C.) 55
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Section 7-I—Writ petition—Challenging order of EPF Authority—Since alternative remedy of appeal is available—Writ petition is disposed of with direction that appeal can be filed and considered., 2019 (163) FLR (Ker. H.C.) 39
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Sections 7-I, 7-Q and 14-B—Appeal—Condonation of delay—In filing appeal beyond 120 days—Not permissible—Settled law—Delay beyond the prescribed period of 60 plus 60 days subject to sufficient cause not to be condoned—Hence, writ petition dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 892
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Section 7-O—Appellate Tribunal—By order granted a complete waiver of condition of predeposit—Tribunal has exercised its discretion to grant waiver—And no sufficient ground found made out by petitioner for interfering in the said decision—No illegality or perversity found in exercise of discretion by Tribunal—As once the Tribunal has arrived at a prima facie conclusion that an attempt to recover the amount was being made without identifying the beneficiaries workmen., 2019 (163) FLR (Del. H.C.) 111
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Sections 7-Q and 14-B—Recovery—Of assessed amount—Determined under section 14-B—Stayed for two months—Tribunal is directed to dispose of stay application within two months., 2019 (163) FLR (Ker. H.C.) 439
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Sections 7-Q, 14-B and 7-O—Pre-deposit—Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997—Rule 21—Appeal was already entertained—While deciding application for granting stay, CGIT directed to deposit 40% of assessed amount—CGIT empowered under Rule 21 of Rules to do so—There is no illegality—Hence, writ petition dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (M.P. H.C.) 716
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Section 8-F (3) (i)—Recovery Order—Recovery of dues of respondent No. 2 and show-cause notices issued by E.P.F.O. respondent No. 1—Challenged by petitioner—Writ petition—Question relates to the question of inter se liability of petitioner—Being disputed question of fact it can be decided only by way of appropriate proceeding—It will be open to parties to agitate them before appropriate forum—These questions being primarily legal issues, do not require me to venture into the disputed questions of fact—However, the respondent cannot even otherwise claim any amount from petitioner—Once the assessment order forming the very basis of its actions has been stayed in judicial proceedings—Order and subsequent show-cause notices are wholly unsustainable and quashed., 2019 (163) FLR (Del. H.C.) 684
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Section 14-B—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Order—Passed by Regional P.F. Commissioner, imposing the penalty under section 14-B of Act confirmed by E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal—Challenged by establishment by writ petition—Question of levy of damages under section 14-B arises only when the employer fails to pay the contribution intentionally or without sufficient cause—However, in this case the delay in remittance of contributions was on account of financial reasons and there was no deliberate or wilful intention—Financial difficulty is not a common problem—Respondent levied penalty on a wrong premise—View of decisions of Apex Court and Division Bench of this Court have not been followed—Impugned order is liable to be quashed—Writ petition is allowed—Deposit by petitioner of sum of ` 30,00,000/- towards damages under section 14-B of Act shall be refunded to petitioner., 2019 (163) FLR (Mad. H.C.–M.B.) 950
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Section 14-B—Levy of damages—As the delay in remittance by employer was on account of financial problems and that there was no deliberate or wilful intention—Hence, this Court is of view that the levy of damages under section 14-B is not automatic in every case—It is admitted that all dues were settled however, with a delay—Writ petition is dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Mad. H.C.) 1023
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Section 14-B—Recovery of dues—Freezing the bank accounts of petitioners—Petitioner claiming to have already paid amount to the contractors—P.F. Authority in proceedings under section 14-B has choosen to freeze the bank accounts of petitioner—Court considered the request of adducing on record the additional proof of having paid the amount—This being the dues of labour class—It is desirable that the acceptable/admissible proof is adduced before this Court., 2019 (163) FLR (Guj. H.C.) 1062
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Section 14-B—Recovery—Petitioner has limited prayer for granting monthly instalments to clear total outstanding dues—However petitioner is given six monthly instalments to clear entire arrear with interest., 2019 (163) FLR (Ker. H.C.) 442
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Sections 14-B and 7-Q—Proceedings—Against petitioner—Due to delay by notified bank, amount reached late to EPFO—Though amount deposited in time—However, EPFO may take action against the bank—Hence, impugned orders under sections 14-B and 7-Q are quashed—Matter is remanded back to EPF Authority for fresh order., 2019 (163) FLR (Pat. H.C.) 1017
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Sections 14-B and 7-Q—Show-cause notice—For imposing damages and interest for delayed remittance—Issued by EPF Authority—By impugned order under section 7-Q he was directed to pay penal interest and attachment order passed—Impugned order is wholly unreasonable and violates principles of natural justice—Therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside—Impugned order and attachment are quashed—Matter is remanded back to respondent EPF-Commissioner., 2019 (163) FLR (Del. H.C.) 916
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Sections 14-B and 7-Q—Writ petition filed assailing the order passed under sections 14-B and 7-Q of EPF Act and consequential recovery certificate—Petitioner is not assailing the merits of assessment but petition filed only for permission to file an appeal despite expiry of time provided for—It is respondent itself who is at fault in not communicating the impugned order to the petitioner at his correct address—Hence, the petitioner was unable to file an appeal within prescribed period—Hence, the petition allowed and petitioner is granted one week time to file an appeal before Tribunal., 2019 (163) FLR (Del. H.C.) 118
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Sections 14-B, 7-Q, 7-A and 1(3), (4), 2(i), 4 Sch. 1—Order—Directing the appellant to deposit penal charges and interest—Issued by the Commissioner—Writ petition—As the principal amount paid, the Single Judge had opined that
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
some time may be granted to appellant to pay the entire penal damages and interest and directed to deposit 60% of penal charges and interest—Appeal—Establishment is covered under the Act—Hence, the order passed by Commissioner had attained finality and cannot be reopened., 2019 (163) FLR (Gau. H.C.) 475
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Section 16—Clubbing of establishments—They may be separate legal entities, having different Directors and share-holders—But nature of control and integrality of functionality quite apparent from the facts—Findings for all three appellants satisfy functional integrality and general unity purpose test—Appeals dismissed with costs., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 516
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Section 16 (1) (d)—Infancy benefits—For an establishment/factory—Exemption claimed under as a new establishment—Assessing Authority and the Commissioner has, by order denied the benefit of infancy under section 16(1)(d) to appellant-petitioner establishment—Which was upheld by High Court—There are concurrent findings of fact by Court below holding that appellant-establishment is a running establishment and cannot be said to be a new establishment—High Court committed no error in holding as such—Has rightly observed that appellant shall not be entitled to benefit of exemption under section 16(1)(d) of Act—Hence, appeal dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 638
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Sections 16 (c) and 7-A—Contributory Provident Fund Scheme—Applicability of Act to respondent-society—Since the respondent-society came in existence under a statute and is having its own pension and contributory provident fund scheme—Hence, it was rightly held by Appellate Authority that pursuant to section 16(c) of Act—Act will not apply to respondent-society., 2019 (163) FLR (Bom. H.C.) 670
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952—
—Sections 16, 16 (1) (d), 7-A and 7-Q—Industrial Disputes Act, 1947—Section 2-A—Exemption—As BCCL, Jaipur was not a separate legal entity—But part of parent company directly—Case would, thus, be fully covered by provisions of section 2-A of Act—And mere location of departments and branches in other cities—Would not have extended the benefit of exemption to this company.
, 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 516
EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948—
Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985—Section 32—Impugned demand—Proceeding initiated by ESI Corporation and in terms of impugned demand called upon the petitioner to discharge liabilities towards dues payable under the ESI Act together with penalty and damages—Proceedings challenged by petition—However, the liability of petitioner in so far as ESI dues are concerned would be governed exclusively by and under Sanctioned Scheme—Provision of Scheme as sanctioned in terms of section 32 of SICA—Clearly bind and override all other statutes—Scheme admittedly absolves the petitioner from liability towards interest and penalties under the Act—In the light of legal position, the impugned demand insofar as it places a burden of interest and damages on petitioners, cannot be sustained., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 525
EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948—
—Section 2 (9)—Employee—Demand Notice—Challenged—Workers of contractor would also fall under definition—Workers ones found more than ten or so working in premises of employer—Is irrespective of fact that workers were of contractors or not., 2019 (163) FLR (Chhat. H.C.) (Sum.) 8
EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948—
—Sections 2 (8), 51-A and 52-A—Employment injury—Occupational disease—Employment injury includes occupational disease—Claimant of benefit under ESI Act—While discharging duties, cotton waste fell on his left eye and he lost his sight of left eye—And subsequently his right eye also affected—Fall of cotton
EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948—
waste has casual relationship between accident and employment—Injury caused to claimant is employment injury—Insurance Court fixed 100% disability and held that claimant entitled to 100% disability under the Act—Findings of Insurance Court need no interference—Appeal dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Mad. H.C.) 16
EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948—
—Sections 2 (9) and 2 (13)—Employee—While applying the definition under section 2(9) of Act as well as precedent law cited, the Court has held that for coming to a conclusion—Precedent law is the guiding factor and the Court has to see whether the functions being discharged by concerned employee were correlating with the role of immediate employer and has direct nexus with the establishment., 2019 (163) FLR (Raj. H.C.) 972
EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948—
—Sections 2 (12), 45-A(1), 45-AA and 77(1-A)—Order—Passed by ESI authority, covering the establishment under the ESI Act—Challenged by petitioner-establishment—Order was passed after taking spot inspection of establishment—Writ petition filed—However, the petitioner could have challenged the impugned order by appeal under section 45-AA of Act—Hence, writ petition dismissed—With a direction not to take any coercive steps for recovery of its dues from petitioner—Petitioner to move appeal under section 45-AA of Act., 2019 (163) FLR (Bom. H.C.) 674
EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948—
—Sections 2 (22) and 45-A—Wages—Travelling and conveyance allowance are not wages—ESI authority directed management to pay ESI contributions on travelling and conveyance allowances paid—Conveyance allowance would be covered under wages under section 2(22) of Act—However, facility of free transport, monetary value would not be part of wages., 2019 (163) FLR (Mad. H.C.) (Sum.) 15
EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948—
—Sections 45-A and 2 (22)—Determination of contributions—Calculation made by Inspector—Respondent was not given reasonable opportunity to prove that amounts shown by Inspector are not amounts of only wages—Hence, impugned judgment is set aside—Matter is remanded back to Competent Authority under the E.S.I. Act., 2019 (163) FLR (Bom. H.C.) 540
EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948—
—Section 45-G—Impugned garnishee notice dated 22.7.2019—Issued by 4th respondent to the banker of petitioner—For recovery of ` 9,60,796/- whereby the 6th respondent bank was directed to pay the said amount from account of petitioner maintained with 6th respondent to credit of 4th respondent failing which 6th respondent-bank is also put on notice—Impugned garnishee notice issued by 4th respondent is contrary to the orders of this Court—Impugned garnishee notice cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside., 2019 (163) FLR (Hyd. H.C.) 1049
EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948—
—Section 75—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Levy of damages by ESI Corporation—Covering two periods of contribution payable—Although there is an effective remedy available under section 75 of Act—In view of certain difficulty in payment of such contribution, the authorities are directed to consider and dispose of representation—After giving one more opportunity to petitioner of personal hearing., 2019 (163) FLR (Mad. H.C.) 157
EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948—
—Section 75 (2)—Demand notice challenged—A legal objection raised—EIC Court has waived of the condition of deposit of 50% of assessed amount—Court refrain from examining the issue as to whether waiver was justified in law.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Chhat. H.C.) (Sum.) 8
EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948—
—Section 82—Limitation Act, 1963—Sections 5 and 12—Appeal—Appeal was admitted, but no substantial question of law was framed at time of admission—Finding of fact is not a substantial question of law unless such finding is perverse or based on no evidence—Evidence on record is insufficient to establish that respondent unit had ever employed 10 or more than 10 employees, hence the respondent is rightly held not covered under the Act—No substantial question of
EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948—
law found involved in this appeal—Appeal being without any merit is dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Jhr. H.C.) 1047
EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948—
—Sections 82, 75 and 75(1)(g)—Employees State Insurance Scheme—Appeal—Exemption—Jurisdiction of ESI Court—Issue in appeal is whether the employees drawing wages of ` 6,500/- and below are to be covered under the Act or were to be governed by private insurance scheme of the company—Appeal filed to set aside the order and decree of ESI Court (Labour Court)—Ultimately by impugned order it was held that power to grant exemption is with appropriate Central Government—Issue is no longer is res integra—Apex Court has held that the ESI Courts have no jurisdiction or power to decide the question of grant of exemption and to grant exemption—Only Writ Courts have the power to review the decision of appropriate Government to grant or reject exemption—Question of exemption under section 87, cannot be raised under section 75 of Act—Hence, order passed by ESI Court deserves to be interfered in this appeal—Appeal allowed., 2019 (163) FLR (Mad. H.C.) 739
EQUITIES—
Award of Labour Court passed directing respondent No. 2 a contract labour to be reinstated in service with continuity in service without back wages—In compliance of interim order, the workman has joined and working with employer—He was 42 years in 2001—And is now on verge of retirement—Hence, in equity too, this Court ought not to interfere with impugned order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution—Petition dismissed.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 808
EX PARTE AWARD—
Setting aside of—It is incumbent upon Labour Court to consider for setting aside ex parte award—It cannot be rejected on ground that the application was filed after the award had become enforceable—Writ petition therefore, allowed—And impugned order is set aside—Matter remanded to Labour Court to consider and decide afresh., 2019 (163) FLR (P&H H.C.) 57
EX PARTE ORDER—
Imposition of conditions—Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971—Section 31(2) —Proceedings—For grant of recovery certificate allowed ex parte—Application under section 31(2) for setting aside ex parte order—Section 31(2) does not empower Court to impose any condition for setting aside ex parte order—Requirement to deposit 50% of adjudicated amount not to be read into the provision—Direction to deposit 50% of amount not statutory and set aside., 2019 (163) FLR (Bom. H.C.) 26
EX PARTE ORDER—
—Passed by Labour Court—Challenged in writ petition by petitioner company engaged in business of pharmaceuticals—Termination of services of respondent Marketing Executive inter alia on ground that he did not report at transferred place—Reference of dispute raised referred to Labour Court—After appreciating the ex parte evidence, the Labour Court vide award answered the reference in favour of respondent, directing the petitioners to reinstate him in service with all benefits of fast service—Labour Court refused to set aside its ex parte award—Hence, writ petition—Petition is liable to be disposed of with direction to petitioners to accept joining of respondent—Petitioner is directed to reinstate the respondent without backwages., 2019 (163) FLR (M.P. H.C.–I.B.) 588
FACTORIES ACT, 1948—
Sections 41 and 87 read with section 61-E and F and section 21(2)—Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1950—Rules 53 and 95—Proceedings initiated for an offence
FACTORIES ACT, 1948—
under—Petitioners, occupier and manager of Rane Brake Linings Ltd.—Seeking to quash the proceedings—As the reply of show-cause not considered either by sanctioning authority or at time of filing of complaint—Hence, the complaint itself becomes unsustainable., 2019 (163) FLR (Mad. H.C.) 159
FACTORIES ACT, 1948—
—Section 92—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Complaint—Against applicant-Manager—Applicant sought for quashing of proceedings of complaint—Wife of late Vijay lodged an FIR and complaint—Her husband an Engineer died on felling of cement roof, when deceased went to repair the roof—Application is also liable to be dismissed—There is no illegality in summoning order—Defence if any cannot be considered at this stage as it falls under disputed questions of facts., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 220
FAMILY PENSION—
Entitlement for—Invoking of writ jurisdiction—Dismissal of—Writ appeal—Serious dispute on the issue of being legally wedded first wife of the deceased—Essentially such fact would determine the right of appellant—Serious dispute on facts arises in the matter—Such claim could not be adjudicated in the writ proceedings—Writ Court rightly rejected the writ petition—Appeal dismissed.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Megh. H.C.) 82
GRATUITY—
Employer-employee relationship—Order passed in gratuity appeal, confirming the order of Controlling Authority allowing claim of gratuity—Challenged by petitioner FCI by writ petition—Nature of work and due control and supervision of employer are to be taken into consideration—As the respondent-workman had served about three years with FCI as direct payment employees—And earlier they were employed with a separate legal entity in Labour Co-operative Society—Not under direct control and supervision of FCI—There was no employer-employee relationship existing between FCI and respondent-workman prior to their observation as direct paymenting—Hence, respondents have committed an error in considering workmen’s employees case for payment of gratuity under the Act., 2019 (163) FLR (Mad. H.C.) 1020
GRATUITY—
—Petitioner company has paid amount of gratuity as ordered by competent Controlling Authority—But could not pay interest @ 10% as ordered—However, petitioner company is required to be given some more time to make payment of interest—As such 3 months time is granted to petitioner company to pay interest.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Raj. H.C.–J.B.) 330
GRATUITY—
—Petitioner No. 1 is a retired employee and petitioner No. 2 is a registered Trade Union—Controlling Authority has issued the recovery certificate with 10% interest—Controlling Authority had issued recovery certificate in favour of employee, since the respondents had not complied with order—Recovery certificate is yet to be executed by respondent No. 3 till date—Same has not been recovered by respondent No. 3—Assistant Government Pleader makes a request to grant two days’ time to ensure that entire amount as directed in recovery certificate is deposited with concerned authority or before this Court—Further, order is to be passed on 25.10.2019., 2019 (163) FLR (Guj. H.C.) 1060
INDUSTRIAL ADJUDICATION—
Onus to prove—Workman claimed that he was removed from service by way of resignation by force—Onus was upon management—Award being perverse is set aside., 2019 (163) FLR (Del. H.C.) 266
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE—
Raised by workman—With delay of 13 long years—As against the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect—Labour Court ought not to have entertained industrial dispute as raised by workman—Hence, award is set aside and petition is allowed., 2019 (163) FLR (Mad. H.C.) 957
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
Sections 2 and 22—Petition—To declare strike and indefinite strike as illegal—As respondents No. 3 and 4 have issued strike notices contrary to statutory provisions, Government orders and orders of this Court—Hence, petition allowed with cost of ` 10,000/- to be paid by respondents No. 3 and 4 respectively—Prayer sought for is granted., 2019 (163) FLR (Mad. H.C.) 315
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 2 (cc), 25-FFF and 250-F—Scope of—Expression “closure”—Explained., 2019 (163) FLR (Bom. H.C.) (Sum.) 23
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 2 (j), 2(ra), Vth Sch. Clause 10—Community Centre—Rightly held as ‘industry’—Respondents as caretaker, in uninterrupted service for almost 22 years which should be done by regular employees—Petitioner indulged in unfair labour practice—Tribunal can pass order for regularisation of respondents—Hence, no interference required with Award passed by Tribunal—Tribunal has passed the award, directing petitioner, management to regularise services of respondents/workmen from date of reference., 2019 (163) FLR (Del. H.C.) (Sum.) 10
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 2 (k)—U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947—Sections 2(l) and 6-F—Application under—Rejected by Labour Court—After taking into consideration the fact that workman has continued to be shown on the rolls of employer—And that the workman had not been able to prove the fact that his conditions of service were changed during pendency of proceedings—Award passed by Labour Court challenged—Core issue revolves in the petition around the interpretation of term industrial dispute—Term industrial dispute as defined under section 2(l) of U.P.I.D. Act and 2(k) of I.D. Act and 2-A of I.D. Act is considered—Essence of an industrial dispute is disagreement—Existence of an “industrial dispute” presupposes the existence of a dispute or difference as a condition precedent—In absence of any real and substantial difference existing between parties—There could not be said to be any industrial dispute subsisting—Therefore, the rejection of application under section 6-F of Act, 1947—Cannot be held to be improper.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 841
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 2 (k) and 10—Individual dispute and industrial dispute—Transfer order—Request for cancellation of—Made by petitioner/workmen—On ground that order of transfer is in violation of Standings Orders and rules—However, it was not an industrial dispute but only an individual dispute—Not as envisaged under section 2(k) of Act—It could not have made any reference for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court—Adjudication upon said reference by Labour Court per se void ab initio and not sustainable in law., 2019 (163) FLR (H.P. H.C.) 480
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 2 (oo) (B), 25-G and 25-H—Retrenchment—Procedure—Reemployment of retrenched workman—Award passed by Labour Court dismissing the claim seeking setting aside of termination of petitioners from service and seeking re-instatement—Challenged by employee petitioner—No rejoinder filed by petitioner before Labour Court—He was daily wager and not permanent employee—Services of petitioner cannot be held to have been illegally terminated—And finding of Tribunal cannot be challenged in writ proceeding on ground of insufficient evidence—Impugned award cannot be set aside., 2019 (163) FLR (Del. H.C.) (Sum.) 24
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 2 (oo) (bb), 25-F and 25-H—Award—Appellant-workman, a Naka Clerk on purely temporary basis on fixed salary—Served from 5.4.1989 to 27.12.1990—And he was not called for duty thereafter as his services were not required—By award the Labour Court held that section to 2(oo) (bb) of Act, did not apply and determination of appellant is in breach of section 25-F of Act—Discharging the workman from service held was illegal and quashed—Directed to reinstate the appellant with continuity of service—Labour Court after carefully considering the evidence on record has passed the impugned order/award—Respondent has not followed the mandatory provisions of Act and has committed breach of section 25-F and 25-H of Act—Hence, the impugned award passed by Labour Court is upheld and restored., 2019 (163) FLR (Guj. H.C.) 730
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 2 (s)—Trainee—Employee was a trainee—Not confirmed in writing on monthly salary of ` 15,000/-—As per settled law, she was not a workman under section 2(s) of Act—On her termination, industrial dispute raised by her, is not maintainable—There is no infirmity in order of termination—Impugned order of reinstatement by Labour Court is set aside—However, amount paid to her under section 7-B of Act shall not be recovered., 2019 (163) FLR (Del. H.C.) 918
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 2 (s) and 10—Workman—Order, passed by Dy. Labour Commissioner, Conciliation Officer—That ‘sales executive’ is not covered in definition of workman—Has committed an error by passing such an order—He has no adjudicatory power—Order impugned is set aside—He is directed to revive proceedings and submit report afresh., 2019 (163) FLR (Bom. H.C.) 672
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 2 (s) and 10 (1-B) (d) (As in West Bengal Act, 1987)—Workman—Labour Court held respondent as workman without considering evidence—There is nothing on record to show that Labour Court recorded findings on basis of evidence led before it—Award is perverse and suffers from illegality—In absence of evidence and findings to that effect—Hence award is set aside and matter is remanded to Labour Court for fresh decision., 2019 (163) FLR (Cal. H.C.) 391
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 2 (s), 25-F, 25-G, 25-H—Retrenchment—Procedure and conditions precedent to—Award passed by Labour Court—Declining claim of appellant—Appellant was caretaker at LIC guest house—After 10 years he was transferred to another guest house at consolidated salary and subsequently he was terminated—In violation of sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of Act—However, he could not prove that he was appointed as caretaker and remained in service of Corporation—Hence, no interference required and made with award and judgment of Single Judge—Appeal dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (P&H H.C.) (Sum.) 18
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 2-A and 2 (a)—Petition—Respondent No. 3 employee Deputy Manager initially approached the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)—During pendency of conciliation proceedings, he also approached CGIT directly under section 2-A(2) of Act—Controlled industry—Unless Central Government notification brings any industry within the control of the Central Government—It cannot be said to be controlled industry—Respondent No. 3 can approach either State Government or the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal directly under section 2-A(2) of Act—And such petition shall not be rejected only on ground of delay and shall be considered on merits., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 530
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 9 (a)—Airport Authority of India Act, 1994—Sections 42 and 43—AAI General Conditions of Service and Remuneration of Employees Regulation, 2003—Compulsory Retirement—During pendency of reference before the Tribunal, no action taken by appellant to compulsory retire any employees—When no interim relief granted at this stage—While Regulation, 2003 held to be
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
invalid—It is directed that during pendency of appeal no coercive action instituted by respondent against officers of appellants pursuant to the award.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Del. H.C.) (Sum.) 9
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 9-A, 12 (3) and 18 (3)—Service laws—Age of superannuation—Government of India, Ministry of Industries increased the age of superannuation of employees of appellant from 58 to 60—Demand of registered trade unions to increase the age of superannuation was however rejected—Age of superannuation reduced to 58 years—Award of Labour Court in favour of workmen—Writ petition filed by company was dismissed by learned Single Judge—Hence, the present special appeal—Held, respondent/workman had complete knowledge that in the year 2003 the age of superannuation was decreased from 60 to 58 years—After year 2003, 56 workmen were retired at the age of 58 years before the superannuation of present respondent/workmen—Workmen raised the dispute after 7 years in year 2010—The dispute was thus, barred by laches as well—Judgment of learned Single Judge set aside—Special appeal allowed., 2019 (163) FLR (Raj. H.C.) 65
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 10—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Reference—Conciliation proceeding—Since Conciliation Officer failed to resolve dispute—Thus, no fault committed by Conciliation Officer in submitting failure report to State Government—Therefore, consequential action of State Government in referring dispute to Industrial Tribunal for adjudication in accordance with law—Petition dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Raj. H.C.) 332
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 10—Dispute—Of illegal closure of mines in violation of Act—Respondent No. 1 refused to entertain dispute of workman on ground of delay and laches—Government cannot delve into merits of dispute—And take upon itself determination of lis—Which would be in excess of power conferred on it by section 10 of Act., 2019 (163) FLR (Kar. H.C.) 30
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 10—Termination—Respondent, a peon was orally terminated on 1.8.2003—Raised industrial dispute on 16.8.2013—Conciliation proceeding failed on 19.5.2014—Dispute was referred to Labour Court—Labour Court answered the reference in favour of respondent/workman—Hence, the present writ petition—Held, respondent did not give any explanation in respect of 11 year delay in approaching before Labour Authorities—No industrial dispute existed between respondent and petitioner—Hence, he was not entitled for relief of reinstatement—However, as the petitioner was not paid any retrenchment compensation at the time of termination—Order impugned modified to the extent of grant of compensation of ` 50,000—Petition partly allowed.
, 2019 (163) FLR (M.P. H.C.–I.B.) 149
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 10 and 11—Dismissal of respondent/employee—Quashed by Labour Court—Instant petitions against same award—Held, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in a case where the departmental enquiry was found to be illegal was much wider and extends not only to the appreciation of evidence but to record its own findings to its own satisfaction and it may by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the employee in such terms and conditions as it thinks fit—Employee was neither supplied with the documents nor given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses nor given any opportunity to produce his defence—Despite his presence the statements of witnesses were recorded ex parte—No interference warranted—Writ petition dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (M.P. H.C.) 594
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 10 and 12—Reference—Termination of services of employee by Executive Engineer H.P.P.W.D.—Award by Labour Court—In view of law laid
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
down by Apex Court—Relief granted to claimant-workman in respect of his regularisation—Being beyond the terms of reference—Cannot be allowed to sustain—As fictional breaks were given to claimants by authority and that his services had been continuously engaged by petitioner-State during 2001 to 2007—Therefore, no infirmity found with directions issued granting seniority and continuity in service to claimant from his initial date of engagement—No infirmity can be found in deciding the reference on point of delay when the same was not challenged by State., 2019 (163) FLR (H.P. H.C.) 931
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 10 and 12 (5)—Reference—Government can consider prima facie the merits of dispute and from taking other relevant considerations into account—Order under section 10 is an administrative act and not a quasi-judicial act—Yet the Courts can examine the order of reference closely—Can interfere in such an order of reference—However, the workmen cannot be allowed to suffer because of wrong reference made by Central Government., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.–L.B.) 835
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 10 (1)—”No dispute award”—Legality, propriety and validity of—Challenged by petitioner-union—In view of settled legal position, no dispute award cannot sustain judicial scrutiny—And the said no dispute award is set aside—Matter is remitted back to Labour Court., 2019 (163) FLR (M.P. H.C.) 147
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 10 (1)—Delay—Unexplained enormous delay in raising dispute—Reference—Filing of claim after 14 years—Unexplained delay of 14 years held it doubtful—There should not be enormous delay in raising industrial dispute—It cannot be condoned merely on pleading innocence., 2019 (163) FLR (Raj. H.C.–J.B.) 1005
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 10 (1), 2 (k), 7-A and 10 (4)— Trade Unions Act, 1926—Sections 22 and 4(1), Proviso—Order—Passed by Dy. Labour Commissioner, has referred the matter to Industrial Court—Whereby the reference made on demand raised by respondent No. 2—Who was held as incompetent to file proceedings—Request of respondent No. 2 to register as Trade Union has been already rejected by Registrar of Trade Union—Respondent No. 2 is neither registered as a Trade Union in State of M.P. nor represents employees of petitioner-company—Employees of petitioner-company are represented by SRF Karamchari Evam Sharamik Sangh—However, 419 employees are regularly working and management of company is not taking care of rights of employees—Therefore, they have raised demands as mentioned in demand note—As far as the locus of respondent No. 2 is concerned, it is to be looked into by Reference Court.
, 2019 (163) FLR (M.P. H.C.–G.B.) 1029
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 10 (1), 25-O, 25-FFA, 25-F and 25-G—Closure—Reference—If dispute was an industrial dispute as defined in Act—Its factual existence and expediency of making a reference—Is matter entirely for Government to decide—And it will not be competent for Court to hold the reference as bad and quash it for want of jurisdiction—If Government is of prima facie opinion that an industrial dispute exists—No fault could be found in the reference—Law on relationship of employee and employer on closure discussed., 2019 (163) FLR (Kar. H.C.) 504
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 10 (2)—Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957—Rules 3, 17, 18, 29 and 33—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Reference—Agreement for engagement of workers of petitioner No. 1 on minimum wages as prescribed for unskilled workers—Bank did not adhere to terms of agreement—Despite notice, the bank finalized the contract with respondent No. 5 to oust the petitioner No. 1 and its members—Whatever the petitioners have alleged is already being looked into by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3—Writ petition is not maintainable at interim stage.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 418
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 11 and 33-C (2)—Application under—By respondent-workman—Labour Court directed petitioner-Management to pay 50% of backwages—Petition challenging the order is bereft of any merit—Petitioner-company is in no way prejudiced if application under section 33-C (2) is heard and disposed of by Labour Court at Bengaluru City., 2019 (163) FLR (Kar. H.C.) 500
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 11-A—Removal from service—Reinstatement of petitioner subject to stopping of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect—Justification of—Labour Court has power to interfere with order of dismissal or removal from service—Considering facts and circumstances of case, Labour Court while passing impugned order—Exercised its jurisdiction judiciously—Impugned order neither arbitrary nor dishonest action on its part—No interference warranted in order impugned—Petition allowed., 2019 (163) FLR (Raj. H.C.–J.B.) 62
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 12 (3)—Regularization—Continuous service—Petitioner watchman was in continuous service—Petitioner had completed 480 days of continuous service—In view of agreement petitioner is entitled for benefit of settlement—Respondent is directed to notionally regularize petitioner’s service—On which date petitioner has completed continuous service—And disburse all consequential monetary benefits., 2019 (163) FLR (Mad. H.C.) 322
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 12 (4)—Reference—Award—Writ petition—For quashing, rescinding, recall and/or setting aside of the award and for direction for regularisation of 115 workmen in service—Award passed by Labour Court—It is found that Labour Court has committed several mistakes of serious nature as pointed out while deciding the reference—And the award is liable to be set aside for such gross mistakes and the award is set aside—Matter remanded back to Labour Court., 2019 (163) FLR (Cal. H.C.) 386
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 17-B—Respondent without addressing relevant facts—Jumped to conclusion of breach of award and initiation of criminal proceedings—Hence, the impugned order is patently bad in law and cannot be sustained—In the ends of justice, petitioner-company is directed to pay last wages drawn by workman in compliance of section 17-B of Act., 2019 (163) FLR (M.P. H.C.–I.B.) 944
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 17-B—Modification—And recalling of order dated 27.3.2019 passed by this Court—This Court vide order dated 27.3.2019 has allowed the prayer of petitioner as he stated that he was not in gainful employment—Once all facts relating to employment of respondent-workman have come on record that he was in employment—Order dated 27.3.2019 cannot be continued—And the same requires to be recalled., 2019 (163) FLR (Raj. H.C.–J.B.) 169
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 18 and 29—Sanction—To prosecute the petitioner—Challenge—Respondents were on rolls of employer—They are entitled to benefits of agreement—There is clear breach of agreement on part of management—Hence, the respondent-Labour Commissioner, exercised powers under section 18 read with 29 of Act—Petition is dismissed with 5000/- as cost., 2019 (163) FLR (M.P. H.C.) 40
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 25-F—Non-compliance of—Termination of services of workman without compliance of section 25-F of Act—As per settled law the workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages and compensation of ` 3 lakhs—In nature of isolation, damages, cost compensation of wrong done by department—Which may be recovered from responsible officials.
, 2019 (163) FLR (P&H) (Sum.) 18
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 25-F—Reinstatement order in favour respondent worker appointed as Personal Assistant w.e.f. 16.7.2005 and worked as such till 7.4.2007—Plea of abandonment of job by workman—Sustainability—Management at no point of time served notice to workman to resume his duties—No plausible explanation
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
given by Management why workman not marked absent with alphabet ‘A’ after date of alleged resignation letter submitted by workman—Single Judge rightly dismissed petition of Management while upholding award passed by Tribunal for reinstatement of worker with continuity of service and 50% back wages—LPA dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (P&H H.C.) 749
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 25-F and 25-B—M.P. Uchcha Nayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005—Section 2(1)—Appeal under section 2(1)—Directed against the order which found respondent-workman having worked 272 days and section 25-F not adhered to—Labour Court found the termination as illegal retrenchment and directed reinstatement of workman without backwages—Findings arrived at by Labour Court that respondent-workman has worked for 272 days preceding the date with reference of which calculation is to be made in view of section 25-B, cannot be faulted with., 2019 (163) FLR (M.P. H.C.) 1026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 25-F and 25-G—Retrenchment—Procedure and conditions precedent to retrenchment—Respondent a daily wager working since 1998—Disengaged from 2002 without paying retrenchment compensation—Labour Court held that termination/ retrenchment as bad in law and directed re-instatement with seniority and continuity of service—Courts have limited power to appreciate evidence adduced before Tribunal—However, there is no illegality in the impugned order/Award—Award therefore, upheld., 2019 (163) FLR (H.P. H.C.) 299
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 33—Termination of service—On his refusal to work at house as domestic servant after duty hours—Tribunal came to conclusion that the slip did not amount to termination of services of appellant—Tribunal answered the reference in favour of management—Order of removal from service by management without seeking approval from Tribunal would be void, hence the Court set aside the award of Tribunal and judgment of Single Judge and held that removing the appellant from service without seeking permission of the Tribunal is void ab initio—Appellant is 57 years of age—He is directed to be reinstated with pay and full backwages with continuity of service., 2019 (163) FLR (Del. H.C.) 121
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 33 and 33-A—Decision adverse to petitioner—When matter pending before Appropriate Government—It may not be technically covered under section 33 or section 33-A of Act—Dispute raised by petitioners may also be considered by the Appropriate Government —Particularly when another dispute of workmen of the establishment already with appropriate Government., 2019 (163) FLR (Utt. H.C.) 1002
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 33 (2)—Claim of monetary benefits made by respondent No. 2—Prior to any adjudication done with regard to dispute—Labour Court held that management is liable to pay the amount of monetary benefits towards Voluntary Retirement Scheme—Labour Court committed error—Unless there is adjudication, question of computation of wages does not arise, order of Labour Court is set aside., 2019 (163) FLR (Mad. H.C.) 312
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 33 (2) (b)—Dismissal of appellant-Bus Conductor after enquiry—Enquiry held not fair—Management in fresh enquiry, proved charges—Conductor did not collect fare of luggage of passengers—He cannot be permitted to raise new contention of non-compliance of section 33-(2) (b)—For the first time in writ appeal—Award and dismissal of claim of workman by Labour Court—No interference required with—Writ appeal dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Kar. H.C.) 145
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 33 and 2 (b)—Approval—Of termination of services—Services terminated on misconduct—Charges admitted by employee—Though inquiry itself not conducted in a fair manner—Passed by Industrial Tribunal—Declaring the inquiry unfair and rejection of application seeking approval not suffer from any infirmity., 2019 (163) FLR (Raj. H.C.) 166
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 33 (2) (b)—Claim—Termination though held as illegal—Considering the long period spent in litigation constrained relations of workman with management—Relief of reinstatement with back wages substituted with a lump sum compensation of ` 75,000 to each workman., 2019 (163) FLR (Pat. H.C.) 961
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 33 (2) (b)—Order of dismissal—On basis of proved misconduct and order not passed during pendency of any dispute or as victimization—Claim of petitioner under section 33(2)(b)—Rightly dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Kar. H.C.) 935
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 33 (3)—Protected workman—Declaration of—A workman facing departmental enquiry or criminal trial—Can be denied status of protected workman—Non-declaration of them as protected workman—Not illegal—Appeal dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Kar. H.C.) 35
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 33-C (1)—Recovery of money—Due from employer—Due to workmen—Workman could make an application for recovery of money due—And authorities shall issue certificate., 2019 (163) FLR (Kar. H.C.) 33
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 33-C (2)—Claim for wages—Order of rejection of claim for wages for 60 months rejected by Labour Court—Challenged by petitioner ex-employee—Benefit of a subsequent Scheme as floated by company—Could in no way entitle the petitioner to claim legally such difference of any monetary benefits under section 33-C (2) of Act—Application not maintainable., 2019 (163) FLR (Jhr. H.C.) 574
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 33-C (2)—Claim petition under—Filed by 2nd respondent—Claiming wages for period from June, 2003 to July, 2004 for a sum of ` 58,456/-—Inspite of fact that the writ petitioner established that 2nd respondent was dismissed from service, the Labour Court allowed the claim petition by impugned order—Labour Court failed to consider the existence of any pre-existing right for purpose of allowing the claim petition—Hence, the impugned order is infirm and not in consonance with legal principles—Accordingly claim petition is quashed and writ petition allowed., 2019 (163) FLR (Mad. H.C.) 718
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 33-C (2)—Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957—Rule 18—Service of notice—Notice sent not received back—Labour Court proceeded ex parte—As per Rule 18, notice may be served personally or by registered post—Notice may be resent again if not served personally—Hence, ex parte order passed by Labour Court is set aside., 2019 (163) FLR (P&H H.C.) 327
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 33-C (2)—Recovery of money due from employer—Application under section 33-C(2)—Claiming salary and other benefits—Order passed by Labour Court, rejecting his claim under section 33-C(2) of Act—Challenged—In view of Labour Court it is rightly held that petitioner was not entitled to claim under section 33-C(2) of Act—There was no pre-determined or pre-existing right—No error found with order passed by Labour Court—Writ petition dismissed.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Cal. H.C.) 370
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 34—Jurisdiction under—To be exercised with due care and caution—Criminal liability is personal strict in nature—Without addressing on relevant facts, the respondent has jumped to conclusion of breach of award and initiation of criminal proceedings—Hence, impugned order is patently bad in law—Cannot be sustained and set aside., 2019 (163) FLR (M.P. H.C.–I.B.) 943
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 34 and 29—Cognizance of offence—When can be taken by Court or the authority under section 34 of Act for an act punishable under section 29 of Act—Word “offence” has to be read and understood in context as it has been prescribed., 2019 (163) FLR (M.P. H.C.–I.B.) 943
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 36 (4)—Writ petition—Challenging the constitutional validity of section 36 (4) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947—Dismissed by High Court—
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
Section 30 of Advocates Act, 1961 considered—Aggrieved by which the appeal filed—Held, I.D. Act is a special piece of legislation—As the judgment in Paradip Port Trust is by Bench of 3 Judges—Court is of considered opinion that these matters be referred to Larger Bench—Workman is at liberty to engage an Advocate and fee of said Advocate shall be paid by Management., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 91
INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1946—
Sections 12-A and 2(5)—Model Standing Orders—Draft Standing Order—Certification of under—Model Standing Orders is deemed to have been in effect prior to certification and coming into effect of the Standing Orders—Apprentices/ trainees do not fall within the definition of “employee” under EPF and MP Act—And are not covered by Act., 2019 (163) FLR (Ker. H.C.) 623
INDUSTRIAL LAW—
Delay in raising dispute and cause—Award allowing the reference in favour of workmen and directed to place the two workmen in initial grade of Helper and to remain in continuous service and to pay them difference of salary—There was very long delay unexplained delay and laches—Other necessary parties are not joined as parties—The Workmen were initially appointed as Trainee workmen for six months—With extending order from time to time—Period of service as such could not be treated as part of continuous service for purpose of granting benefit as permanent employees—Hence, award is set aside., 2019 (163) FLR (Guj. H.C.) (Sum.) 11
JUDICIAL REVIEW—
Issue raised is more to take credit by officers engaged in operation Vijay—Reports do not have any civil consequences—Therefore, are not subject to judicial review., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 634
KERALA FACTORIES RULES, 1957—
Rule 3 (1)(c)—Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development Act, 1999—Section 4—Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011—Rule 59—Building permit—Permission to construct unit to manufacture grill, gate etc. in close vicinity of temple—Challenge thereto—Sustainability—Distance norms applicable for religious-cum-worship building but not to temple complex itself—Distance requirement only 25 meters under Kerala Factories Rules, 1957—While unit and temple at distance 26 meters—No illegality committed by Single Judge in approving decision of clearance Board in granting building permit—Writ appeal dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Ker. H.C.) 252
LABOUR COURT—
Jurisdiction—Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977—Sections 2, 3 and 9—Applicable only to private schools as defined under section 3(1) of said Act—Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not private schools—Hence, question of its employees invoking jurisdiction of school Tribunal does not arise—Mere reference to services of petitioners being governed by Special Code would not confer jurisdiction on school Tribunal., 2019 (163) FLR (Bom. H.C.) 21
LABOUR COURT—
—Jurisdiction—Power—Applicability of C.P.C. and Evidence Act—Though provisions of C.P.C. are strictly not applicable—But the provisions contained in C.P.C. and Evidence Act do apply—Deciding a preliminary issue considered in view of Order XIV, Rule 1 of C.P.C., 2019 (163) FLR (Utt. H.C.) 342
LABOUR DISPUTE—
Amendment in pleadings—Amendment application—Order allowing amendment by workman in pleadings in his written statement—Challenged by management—Principles of res judicata would not apply in the case—No prejudice
LABOUR DISPUTE—
or miscarriage of justice caused to petitioner—He can rebut the amendment made by filing additional W.S.—Writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Utt. H.C.) 79
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA (EMPLOYEES) PENSION RULES, 1985—
Rule 3(1)(a)—Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960—Regulation 18—Pension—Claims of—Pension Scheme came into force subsequent to these employees has resigned—Pension scheme came with retrospective effect—These employees who had resigned before the date from which date the pension scheme were made applicable but prior to date on which schemes got notified—Would not be entitled to the benefits of such pension schemes., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) (Sum.) 2
MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE ACT, 1977—
Sections 16 and 7(2)(xiv)—Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923—Section 22—Compensation—By virtue of provision of section 16 of Act, 1973 an employee who has received the ex gratia payment under section 7(2)(xiv) of Act—Not precluded in seeking compensation under any of provisions of Act, 1923., 2019 (163) FLR (Bom. H.C.–N.B.) 467
MAHARASHTRA RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNIONS AND PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES ACT, 1971—
Unfair labour practice—Complaint of—Dismissal—Of petitioner-Bus Conductor with respondent-Corporation—On charge of issuing used and unpunched tickets—Once fairness of enquiry not questioned, non-examination of passengers does not effect legality of enquiry—Labour Court adopted procedure alien to labour law—Judgment of the Labour Court is grossly perverse and erroneous and it has been appropriately set aside—Petition dismissed.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Bom. H.C.) 907
MAHARASHTRA RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNIONS AND PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES ACT, 1971—
—Section 28—Industrial Disputes Act, 1947—Section 2(s)—Complaint—Unfair labour practice—Complainant as Branch Manager was not a workman—And the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint—In absence of any jurisdictional error, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Bom. H.C.–N.B.) 245
MAHARASHTRA RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNIONS AND PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES ACT, 1971—
—Section 28—With Clauses 1(a), (b), (d), (e) and (f) of Schedule IV—Award of lump sum compensation of ` 50,000/-—To workman daily wager by High Court—Appellant has been out of employment for more than three decades—Hence, the compensation of ` 50,000/- awarded to appellant is enhanced to ` 1,50,000/-—And the balance amount of ` 1,00,000/- shall be paid to appellant by respondent-Zila Parishad., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 653
MAHARASHTRA RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNIONS AND PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES ACT, 1971—
—Section 28 read with Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV—Complaints—For appointments and to be given regular status—Claimed on basis that they (appellants) had worked for more than 240 days continuously—In view of the facts the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of regularization—And mere delay in preferring claim would not come in their way—Hence, respondents are directed to regularise the appellants accordingly—Benefits would be given to appellants., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 513
MAHARASHTRA RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNIONS AND PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES ACT, 1971—
—Seciton 30(2)—Complaint under—Interim relief sought under on being obstructed ingress or egress of material, persons and goods by the Union and its supporters—Rejection of—Legality of—Closure of unit—Complaint of unfair practice against the employees union—Company closed its undertaking on account of inability to carry on business after paying total package of compensation including notice pay of one month to its employees—Closure was
MAHARASHTRA RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNIONS AND PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES ACT, 1971—
covered under section 25-FFF (1) proviso—Employer claimed to have paid such cmpensation to the employees to which the union even accepted—Closure effected more than two years after the assurance given by the employer to the union—Closure was a fresh exigencies as a result of the inability of the employer to carry on the business—Not was a result of shifting of the oil undertaking outside the Nasik—Closure notice was given to the employees one day prior to the closure of the unit—Order of the Industrial Court rejecting the interim injunction is unsustainable—Set aside—Interim application allowed—Writ petition allowed., 2019 (163) FLR (Bom. H.C.) (Sum.) 23
MANUAL OF APPOINTMENT AND ALLOWANCES OF OFFICERS OF THE INDIAN POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS DEPARTMENT—
Rule 154 (a)—Pensionary benefits—Entitlement for— Respondent No. 1 appointed as contingent paid Chaukidar on 14.12.1990—He was granted temporary status w.e.f. 18.1.1992—Thereafter accorded benefits of Group-D employee—He retired from service after completing 26 years of service but denied pensionary benefits—Legality of—In view of provisions of Rule 154-A of Manual, Group ‘D’ employees who worked side by side with regular employees—Or employees of work charged cadre—Should be treated as regular employees—Therefore, would be entitled to payment of retiral benefits—Tribunal rightly allowed pensionary benefits to respondent No. 1— Petition dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) (Sum.) 5
MATERNITY BENEFITS ACT, 1961—
Sections 27(3(e), 2(1)(a) and 2—U.P. Fundamental Rules—Rule 153, 2nd proviso—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 42—Appeal—Against the order passed by single Judge—Single Judge has held that 2nd proviso to FR 153 was not in conformity with section 27 and also against the spirit of Article 42 of Constitution—2nd proviso to FR 153 of F.R. as adopted by State of Uttarakhand was declared ultra vires by Single Judge—State was directed to provide maternity leave to respondent—Single Judge has erred in striking down the 2nd proviso to F.R. 153, both on ground that it is inconsistent with provisions of Maternity Benefits Act and that it is contrary to spirit of Article 42 of Constitution—Maternity Benefits Act is not applicable to Government employees—In absence of any law being made by State of Uttarakhand, providing for maternity benefits to Government servants having a third child—And as Article 42 of Constitution is not enforceable in proceedings before any Court—Striking down the 2nd proviso to F.R. 153 is wholly unjustified—Special appeal is allowed.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Utt. H.C.) 762
MINIMUM WAGES—
Claim for payment of minimum wages and for regularization of services—Prayer of minimum wages will govern the present appeal on same terms—Appellant expressed his willingness to avail the remedy available under Labour laws—Tribunal shall decide the issue of regularization on its own merits independently—Appeal partly allowed—Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Guj. H.C.) 129
MINIMUM WAGES—
—Claim of—Petitioners are Class IV employees working as Safai Karamchari—Their services are extended from time to time—Any reluctance of employer to award minimum wages to a workman—Is not only illegal and immoral—But also invites criminal liability—State is directed to pay the salary to petitioners.
, 2019 (163) FLR (P&H H.C.) 746
NEYVELLI LIGNITE CORPORATION EMPLOYEES (CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES—
Rule 30—Punishment—Director of Corporation invoked the powers under Rule 30, substituted the punishment to that of declaring appellant’s appointment to be null and void—The order of Director in wholly arbitrary unreasonable and is not legally sustainable—Corporation had no power to hold any departmental inquiry in relation to caste certificate—Because he has condoned the issue by allowing the appellant to join the duties and later by promoting him to next higher grade—Order of Director therefore set aside., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) (Sum.) 19
PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972—
Section 1(3)(c)—Retirement Benefits and General Provident Fund Regulations, 1962—Applicability to employees of Nagar Nigam—Order passed by Controlling Authority, determining the amount of gratuity payable to respondent-workman—Challenged by Nagar Nigam—In view of law laid down in Mujib Ullah Khan case that the Gratuity Act is applicable to Municipalities, the writ petition is dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 849
PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972—
—Sections 1 (3) (c) and 14—Applicability of Act—To employees of Nagar Nigam—Who are governed by provisions of Retirement Benefits and G.P.F. Regulations, 1962—However, in view of law laid down by Apex Court in case of Mujib Ullah Khan, (2019) 6 SCC 103, the Act is applicable to Muncipalities—Provisions of State Act will be inapplicable in respect of employees of local bodies., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 818
PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972—
—Section 4—Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972—Rule 7(1)—Gratuity—Claim of—Services of respondent came to an end on 21.2.2015 and claim petition preferred on 27.8.2015 after about six months—There is no requirement under this Rule 7(1) that the claim petition before the Controlling Authority must be mandatorily made within 30 days—Controlling Authority has rightly directed petitioner to pay gratuity amount with 10% interest., 2019 (163) FLR (Del. H.C.) 548
PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972—
—Sections 4 and 5—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Order passed by Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority—Challenged in writ petition by the company-petitioner—Respondent-employee of company was granted benefit of Act by the Authorities—State Government issued Notifications granting exemptions to petitioner—However, the notification will not nullify nor take away the effect and benefit of order passed by authorities under the Act, 1972 nor will it take away the right of employees including the existing pensioners of gratuity under the Act, 1972—Hence, the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority have not committed any error of law in granting benefit of Act, 1972 to respondent., 2019 (163) FLR (M.P. H.C.) 713
PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972—
—Sections 4 and 7—Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972—Rule 7—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Gratuity—Order for payment of amount of gratuity with interest by Controlling Authority—Writ petition—Maintainability—Since alternative remedy of appeal available to petitioner—Therefore, petition held not maintainable—Petition disposed of., 2019 (163) FLR (Jhr. H.C.) 1035
PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972—
—Section 4 (6) (a) or (b)—Gratuity—Respondent No. 3 employee of petitioner Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. has retired from service after 34 years 8 months and 18 days of service—Since there is a pending criminal case, his request to release the amount of gratuity denied by Controlling Authority—There is no order of termination—There is also no order of forfeiture of gratuity—Gratuity cannot be denied to employee., 2019 (163) FLR (Jhr. H.C.) 571
PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972—
—Section 7—Gratuity—Order passed by Controlling Authority—Whereby liability to pay gratuity and interest to teachers fastened upon concerned institutions—Challenged by institutions—Since order passed by Controlling
PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972—
Authority is bereft of any reason—Therefore the same is set aside—Matter remitted back to Controlling Authority to decide afresh., 2019 (163) FLR (Utt. H.C.) 356
PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972—
—Section 7, second proviso—Appeal—Department has preferred an appeal without deposit of interest—There are 25 employees, who are beneficiaries of order of Controlling Authority—It is mandatory that principal amount together with interest has to be deposited before the appeal is entertained—Management can deposit the interest portion—Appellate Authority will have to make payment to employees as and when they retire—Appellate Authority shall take into consideration the order passed., 2019 (163) FLR (Mad. H.C.) 53
PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972—
—Sections 7(4), 2-A, 2(e), 5, 1(3)(a) and 14—U.P. Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1975—Rule 10—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Gorakhpur Nagar Mahapalika Non Centralised Employees (Retirement Benefit) Regulations, 1990—Regulation 3(5)—Writ petitions—Filed by Nagar Nigam against the orders passed by Controlling Authority and also by Appellate Authority/Dy. Labour Commissioner, U.P.—Gratuity is payable to every employee covered by definition under section 2(e) of P.G. Act—Exemption cannot be held to follow automatically from a mere assertion—Act 1972 having been made applicable to local bodies including Municipal Corporations unless they are exempted—Provisions of Act in view of section 14 are to override other enactments and schemes—The overriding effect of section 14 provides a kind of immunity to right to claim gratuity under P.G. Act—Principle of applying a liberal construction applies to P.G. Act—Petitioner has not been able to dispute the legal proposition and no material error or irregularity pointed out in orders passed by Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority, so as to warrant interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 852
PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972—
—Section 7(7)—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Writ petition—Appeal—Would be filed by employer against an order passed by Controlling Authority—To be accepted only on fulfilment of conditions to entertain appeal as per section 7(7) of Act., 2019 (163) FLR (Jhr. H.C.) 1040
PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972—
—Section 13—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 60(g)—Protection of gratuity from attachment—Violation of section 13 of Act and section 60(g) of C.P.C.—I.T.D.C. cannot be faulted for making payment in compliance of attachment order of the Court—Balance gratuity amount has already been released, alongwith interest to petitioner—Petitioner is seeking a direction to I.T.D.C., for release of remaining gratuity amount and compensation for withholding the terminable benefits—Appropriate remedy of petitioner was to challenge the decrees against petitioner-wife and two orders of Execution Court, for alleged violation of section 13 of Act and section 60(g) of C.P.C. and to seek restitution—Petitioner lacks bona fide as he has not approached this Court with clean hands—Petition dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Del. H.C.) 127
PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972—
—Section 14—Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983—Section 79—Claim of gratuity amount—Employee appointed as an Appraiser in petitioner Co-operative Bank died during pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him on serious allegations of misappropriation—No final order passed in such disciplinary proceedings—3rd respondent blood brother of deceased employee claimed his gratuity amount which was allowed by Controlling Authority and confirmed by Appellate Authority—Writ petition by Co-operative Bank—Court held that TNCS Act shall apply and not general Act—Moreover 3rd respondent claimant is not a Class I legal heir and he has no succession certificate—Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority have committed an error in allowing claim under Gratuity Act—Order impugned is quashed.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Mad. H.C.) 742
PENSION—
A.N. Sinha Institute of Social Sciences Act, 1964—Sections 6 and 8—Claim for—Order by Division Bench of High Court, directing the State to provide financial assistance for payment of arrears and current pension to ex-employees of A.N.S. Institute of Social Studies, Patna—Challenged by State—Disbursement of pension is not included in section 8 of Act—Unless a legal obligation exists, there cannot be any legitimate expectation—Resolution of Board of Institute to implement a retirement benefit scheme from its own resources will not bind the State Government to pay pension to employees of institute—Employees of such institute cannot be treated at par with employees of State nor the State can be burdened with responsibility to pay pension to employees of institute—Hence, order of Division Bench is not legally sustainable., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 643
PENSION—
—Order passed by Commissioner rejecting the representation—While complying with order by holding that petitioner is not entitled to any pension in view of fact that the petitioner was not member of Family Pension Scheme, 1971—Representation was rejected by impugned order on wrong premise that petitioner never became member of Pension Scheme—In no uncertain terms, the company Judge decided the claims of pension of Ex-workmen of wound up company by considering the same—Aforesaid order has not been referred by respondent No. 1 while passing the impugned order—Therefore, there is no application of mind on relevant consideration—Hence, impugned order is quashed—Respondent No. 1 or any other Competent Officer may consider the claim of petitioner for pension and Pension Schemes—Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952., 2019 (163) FLR (M.P. H.C.) 580
PENSION—
—Pro-rata claim—For pension on opting voluntary retirement—Pension (including commuted value of pension) as per Central Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995—On examining all case law available on issues—High Court has not correctly interpreted the Central Bank of India Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001 and Regulations—No exception can be made, though he is waiting for last 18 years to receive pension—Statutory regime in the Scheme has to be adhered to and no exception can be made with regard to the case of one individuals—Appeal allowed., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 626
PENSION—
—Under Pension Scheme in Bank—Respondent-employee applied option for after the cut-off date—Considering the fact that he had rendered long period of service to appellant-Bank and keeping in view the exceptional circumstances, the High Court had directed the appellant-Bank to accept the option exercised by respondent—No interference made with the order—However, the order passed by High Court is subject to returning of P.F. contribution and respondent shall not be entitled to claim any interest on pension to be paid., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 830
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES, PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND FULL PARTICIPATION) ACT, 1955—
Section 33—Contractual appointment—Reservation of post—Application challenging advertisement inviting application for contractual appointment and calling petitioner for interview—Rejection of—Legality—Reservation for persons with disability apparently in respect of regular appointments on substantive posts against sanctioned posts—Question of vacancies only arises if there are sanctioned vacant posts—Contractual appointments are not against sanctioned vacant posts—Rather they are without reference to any post—In present case, advertisement published for contractual appointment and not for any regular or substantive appointment against sanctioned post—Therefore, petitioner not entitled for any reservation in appointments against aforesaid advertisement—Petition dismissed.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) (Sum.) 22
RECOVERY—
In excess of actual amount due or recoverable—EPFO assessed damages and interest by passing an ex parte order and recovered it—Huge and excess amount recovered remained with EPFO—Hence, EPFO is liable to pay interest upon such amount, which is illegally kept and used—Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to compound interest @ 9%., 2019 (163) FLR (Pat. H.C.) 959
RECOVERY ORDER—
Legality of—Departmental proceeding initiated after death of husband of petitioner—Departmental proceeding initiated ignoring fact of death of husband of petitioner—Issuance of notice to petitioner—To submit reply for an allegation against her late husband by Inquiry Officer—Absolutely suffers from non-application of mind—Thus, complete departmental proceeding—Ex facie bad as in any case, no enquiry can be initiated against a dead person—Therefore, impugned order qaushed—Petition allowed., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) (Sum.) 4
REFERENCE—
Appropriate Government refused to refer the dispute—Employee was Sales Manager—Appropriate Government has no power to adjudicate if the employee is a workman or not—Authority has misdirected himself in usurping the power of quasi-judicial body—Such finding is not justified and is quashed—Matter remanded back to appropriate Government to consider matter afresh.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Pat. H.C.) 1018
REFERENCE—
—Delay in—Reference made by respondent after 26 years of retrenchment, which was virtually complete service tenure of employee—And such reference, without proper explanation could not be entertained—Labour Court erred in ignoring limitation—No relief, therefore, could be granted to respondent on such reference., 2019 (163) FLR (M.P. H.C.) (Sum.) 13
REGISTRATION—
Acceptance of on same date—There was no specification of date of accepting it—But to accept it immediately—Hence, there is no fault in accepting it on same date., 2019 (163) FLR (P&H) (Sum.) 17
REGULARISATION—
Award passed by Industrial Tribunal directing the appellant Municipality, to regularise the services of workman, Keyman with appellant for last eleven years—Workman had completed 240 days in each calendar year—Hence, the Tribunal had not committed any error of law and fact—Findings recorded by Tribunal are not incorrect or perverse—Hence, no interference made with award and order of Single Judge., 2019 (163) FLR (Guj. H.C.) 727
REGULARISATION—
—Denial of—In service of daily wagers—Order of denial of relief of regularisation in service—Challenged by writ petition—Grievance regarding regularisation in service—Could not have been taken in contempt proceedings—High Court not justified in passing orders to secure presence of officers again and again in the Court—Hence, entire proceedings of contempt are wholly unjustified and in exceeded jurisdiction vested in Contempt Court., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) (Sum.) 3
REINSTATEMENT—
Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Order passed by High Court directing reinstatement of petitioners on respective posts with all consequential benefits—Challenged by State—Real controversy is whether the writ petitioners were legally and validly appointed—None of them, could establish the genuineness of their appointment before State Committee—State Committee has opined that their appointment was illegal and void ab initio—No ground found to disagree with findings of State Committee and petitioners cannot be said to be
REINSTATEMENT—
civil servants of State—Hence, question of holding disciplinary proceeding does not arise and appeal by petitioners dismissed and appeal by State allowed.
, 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 257
REMOVAL—
From service—During pendency of industrial dispute referred—Removal held illegal and direction issued to reinstate the appellant—Appellant is reinstated by order of Division Bench—However, Division Bench was, in review, not justified in denying arrears of salary to appellant—Hence, the appeal is allowed in part—And respondents are directed to pay arrears of salary to appellant., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 651
RESIGNATION—
Resignation letter shows request of its acceptance forthwith—Employer accepted it—Hence, no fault found on part of employer—Writ petition filed after four and half years of award—Liable to be thrown out—Writ appeal is allowed.
, 2019 (163) FLR (P&H H.C.) 329
RESIGNATION—
—Whether voluntarily made—Burden on management to prove that workman had resigned voluntarily—Since, workman has proved that the resignation was obtained forcefully—Workman is entitled to reinstatement with 50% back wages.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Del. H.C.) 266
RETIRAL BENEFITS—
Pension and gratuity pending judicial proceedings—Petitioner seeks quashing of order declining payment of full pension and gratuity during pendency of judicial proceedings—In view of conflicting decisions rendered by two Division Benches in State of U.P. and others v. Jai Prakash on one hand and in State of U.P. and others v. Faini Singh, matter is referred to the Larger Bench—Articles 351 and 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations clearly indicate that State Government/Governor reserves to itself the power and right to withhold or withdraw pension or part thereof—Such power can be invoked if pensioner is convicted of serious crime, is guilty of grave misconduct, caused pecuniary loss to the Government during service—In case of pendency of disciplinary/judicial proceeding on date of retirement or thereafter, provisional pension may be sanctioned—Gratuity is payable to the employee during pendency of such proceedings—A Government servant not entitled to full pension/death-cum-retirement gratuity on or during pendency of judicial proceedings—Entitlement to full pension/death-cum-retirement gratuity is subject to outcome of such proceedings—Broad principles formulated in Jai Prakash lay down the correct law—Reference answered accordingly., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.–F.B.) 271
RETIREMENT—
Age of retirement—Fundamental Rule 56(b)—Respondent was engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis in January, 1990 under H.P.P.W.D.—Work charge status was accorded to petitioner on 11.12.2002—Vide office order dated 20.3.2008 he was regularised retrospectively w.e.f. 1.1.2001—Notification dated 10.5.2001 has come into force only w.e.f. 10.5.2001—Thus, will not govern the respondent-workman who was appointed before 10.5.2001—His date of retirement will thus be in terms of unamended F.R. 56(b) as it stood before 10.5.2001—He had to be retired at the age of 60 years., 2019 (163) FLR (H.P. H.C.) 926
RETIREMENT—
—Decision of—Does not refer to Staff Rules, 1979—Thus, found bad—Employee entitled to continue in service till 31.1.2012., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 435
REVIEW—
Merely on entertaining a different view on interpretation of Rule 75 of West Bengal Service Rules, 1971—It was not open to Division Bench to review previous judgment and order passed by different Division Bench of High Court—There was such error apparent on face of record., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) (Sum.) 1
SEASONAL EMPLOYEE—
Award—Granting relief of reinstatement to respondent-workman on post of Seasonal Weighment Clerk with continuity of service and full back wages and consequential reliefs—His services were dispensed with from seasonal year 2004-05—However, the seasonal workman having not proved the factum of his seasonal engagement upto 2003-2004—Claim of his engagement for 2003-2004 is clearly unsustainable—Inference drawn by Labour Court that his services were terminated without following due procedure, is patently erroneous and cannot be sustained—Award is set aside., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 183
SELECTION PROCESS—
Character verification of the candidate—In response to advertisement for the posts of Subedars, Platoon Commanders and Inspectors of Police respondent participated in the selection process—Selected in written examination and called for medical examination—His candidature rejected—A criminal case was pending against the respondent when he had applied—Compromise was entered into only after affidavit disclosing pendency was filed—As a result of composition accused was acquitted of the charges under sections 294, 325/34, 323, 506 Part-II, I.P.C.—Even after disclosure made by a candidate—Employer well within his rights to consider the incidents and suitability of the candidate—Employer can certainly take into account the job profile, severely of the charges and whether acquittal was honourable or on ground of benefit of doubt or compromise—No material on record to suggest that decision of the authorities in rejecting the candidature of the respondent was actuated by mala fides or on any other count—Officers of Police Department responsible to control criminals—Not proper to appoint the persons of criminal record in public interest—Decision on suitability of the respondent absolutely correct—Impugned judgment rendered by the Single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench set aside—Appeal allowed., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) (Sum.) 19
SERVICE LAW—
Disciplinary proceeding—Disciplinary proceeding against dead employee—Held, not permissible., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) (Sum.) 4
SERVICE LAW—
—Regularisation—Respondent No. 5 appointed as L.T. Grade Assistant Teacher on 31.12.1984 in resultant vacancy caused by promotion of a teacher as Lecturer (Civics) from L.T. Grade Assistant Teacher—Not in dispute—Claim for regularization of respondent No. 5 directed to be considered by Regional Level Committee by High Court vide order dated 31.10.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 196191 of 1995—Order of regularization passed after taking into account all materials—Legality—Since respondent No. 5 rendered service for a period of 10 years between 1985 to 1995—Therefore, he can claim his regularization according to U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982—Accordingly, he was eligible for being considered for regularisation of his service as LT Grade Teacher—Order of regularisation of respondent No. 5 rightly upheld by Division Bench—Appeal dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 832
SEXUAL HARASSMENT—
Complaint Committee observed and gave benefit of doubt to respondent No. 3—On careful consideration of record of inquiry proceedings—Complaint appears to
SEXUAL HARASSMENT—
be false—Petitioner did not even disclose the alleged comments before the Internal Committee—And no reason given for this—Hence, the entire complaint appears to be false and filed with some ulterior motive—Hence, writ petition filed challenging the order of Internal Complaints Committee has no merit and dismissed with cost of ` 50,000/-., 2019 (163) FLR (Del. H.C.) 693
SEXUAL HARASSMENT—
—Complaint when appears to be false—Alleged comments not disclosed before the committee—Entire complaint appears to be false., 2019 (163) FLR (Del. H.C.) 694
SEXUAL HARASSMENT—
—Dismissal of petitioner from service—On recommendation of Internal Committee of Department—On complaint of two women employees—Writ petition—Order of Vice-Chancellor to cease the services of petitioner at University—Does not proceed on sound principles of law—All submissions of petitioner require consideration., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 263
SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN AT WORKPLACE (PREVENTION, PROHIBITION AND REDRESSAL) ACT, 2013—
Section 4—Sexual harassment—Complaint by petitioner—To Chairperson of Women’s Cell—Chairperson communicated the decision of women’s cell to petitioner and held that it does not fall within purview of sexual harassment—However, section 4 pertains to the constitution of an internal complaints committee—Direction issued that petitioner’s complaint shall be considered by such Committee—And the decision will be communicated to petitioner.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Bom. H.C.) 238
SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN AT WORKPLACE (PREVENTION, PROHIBITION AND REDRESSAL) ACT, 2013—
—Section 11—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 20(2)—Complaint—When recommendation is still not implemented—First respondent Internal Complaints Committee has no jurisdiction to conduct 2nd investigation/inquiry—And to initiate fresh inquiry on same charges—Initiation of fresh inquiry, on same charges on same complaint is impermissible—Amounts to double jeopardy—Therefore, the same cannot be sustained., 2019 (163) FLR (Kar. H.C.) 494
SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN AT WORKPLACE (PREVENTION, PROHIBITION AND REDRESSAL) ACT, 2013—
—Sections 13 and 18—Writ petition filed by petitioner a Judicial Officer against whom disciplinary proceedings alleging sexual harassment is under way—In the case inquiry report submitted by internal complaint committee—Hence, the right of appeal against the recommendation made under section 13 or appealable under section 18—Due to non-supply of preliminary inquiry report the proceeding is not vitiated—Petitioner can raise all pleas of facts and law before the Appropriate Authority—Petition dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 94
TERMINATION—
Abandonment of duty—Petitioner worker applied for medical leave and extended leave—When he reported back, the respondent refused to provide duty—Labour Court on reference rejected the claim of reinstatement—Burden of proof is upon employer to show that the claim of petitioner is not maintainable and to show the date of not reporting for duty—In absence of unexplained facts, the employer is directed to consider documents and consider her case of at least providing for compensation., 2019 (163) FLR (Mad. H.C.) (Sum.) 15
TERMINATION—
—Closure or retrenchment—Once Labour Court found that petitioner-Unit had suffered a closure with intimation of fact to Government—It was not subject to look into reasons of closure—Inquiry into reasons was irrelevant—No claim based on rights arising from retrenchment—Finding of Labour Court holding the petitioner in violation of various provisions of State and Central Act—Related to retrenchment are manifestly illegal—Impugned award not sustainable and quashed., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 787
TERMINATION—
—Letter cannot be construed as one terminating services of workman—No specific date of termination was proved by workman—He was in service upto 30.10.1999 and he was advised to proceed on privilege leave w.e.f. 8.10.1999—And the workman is likely to superannuate in this year—Hence, 50% backwages with consequential benefits on full wages would serve the purpose—Hence, in lieu of reinstatement, the workman would be paid 50% backwages., 2019 (163) FLR (Guj. H.C.) 568
TERMINATION—
—Misconduct—Appellant-petitioner a Bus Conductor—Charged for non-issuance of—Tickets to passengers despite having collected fare—Terminated after departmental enquiry—Labour Court concluded that removal of petitioner from service was legal and justified and declined to grant any relief to petitioner—Labour Court is expected to arrive at a conclusion after dealing with stand of both sides—Not merely on evidence led by management—Once the issue of legality of Domestic Inquiry was held against the Management, any finding of misconduct against petitioner could be based only on evidence led before the Court—Labour Court failed to appreciate the effect of representation made by petitioner soon after incident—Hence, the award is wholly unsustainable and is set aside—Matter is remanded back to Labour Court for deciding afresh., 2019 (163) FLR (Del. H.C.) 459
TERMINATION—
—Of an Anganbari Karyakatri—Petition against—Maintainability of—Appointment of petitioner as Anganbari Karyakatri—Appointed on contractual basis—Clear distinction between public employment governed by statutory rules and private employment governed purely by contract—Where relationship purely governed by a contract with no element of statutory governance—Contract of personal service will not be specifically enforceable—Therefore, no relief of reinstatement can be granted to petitioner—At best remedy lies in common law claiming damages for breach of contract—Petition dismissed.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) (Sum.) 23
TERMINATION—
—Of appellant from service for charges—Appellant was enrolled in Indian Army—He was charged with disobeying the lawful command of his superiors on two occasions—He is guilty of not co-operating with Summary Court Martial—He has not utilized the opportunity to defend himself—Hence, the penalty of terminating of services of appellant cannot be said to be incommensurate with the delinquency—Armed Forces Tribunal rightly affirmed the termination of services of appellant—Army Act, 1950—Sections 41(2) and 41(2)., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 109
TERMINATION—
—Of services of petitioner workman was held by Industrial Tribunal legal and justified—Post on which he was appointed was a temporary post and no procedure followed in appointment, which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution—Hence, there is no question of regularisation of his services—Claim of petitioner is devoid of merit and writ petition stands dismissed.
, 2019 (163) FLR (P&H H.C.) 1013
TERMINATION—
—Of services of respondent, workman—Treating him as a daily wager—Award for reinstatement passed by Labour Court, treating the termination as illegal—Once the award was already upheld by High Court and stay application was dismissed—There was no occasion for Samiti to terminate the services of workman treating him as a daily wager after award passed—Hence, proceedings initiated by petitioner are wholly frivolous—Petition dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Raj. H.C.–J.B.) 980
TERMINATION—
—Of services of workman by contractor—On direction by principal employer—Workman was involved in incident of mobile snatching—Since workman had lost the confidence of principal employer—Hence, order of reinstatement cannot be passed—However, compensation can be awarded—Only lump sum compensation is appropriate relief., 2019 (163) FLR (Del. H.C.) 697
TERMINATION—
—Of services of workmen—Burden of proof—Of employer-employee relationship—Is always upon the person who sets up such plea., 2019 (163) FLR (Bom. H.C.) (Sum.) 23
TERMINATION—
—Of temporary services of petitioners—Legality of—Petitioners appointed between year 1980-82 on different Class-III posts in Forest Department—Petitioners given appointments as temporary Government servants in year 1992—Petitioners given opportunities to appear in regularization test—But they failed to appear in same—Further all petitioners crossed age of superannuation TERMINATION—
—Therefore, no relief can be granted to them at this belated stage—Petition dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) (Sum.) 22
TERMINATION—
—On wrongful termination of services of respondent—Compensation of ` 20,000/- granted to respondent—Single Judge enhanced the compensation to ` 1,00,000/- as global compensation—No error either in law or on facts found, in view of all attendant circumstances as narrated in order—Hence, no interference required with order—Appeal rejected., 2019 (163) FLR (Kar. H.C.–D.B.) 708
TERMINATION—
—Order of termination—Order of dismissal of respondent issued merely on basis of his conviction of two years in criminal case—Labour Court held that order of termination is not sustainable in law—In absence of proper consideration of judgment of criminal Court by competent authority—Order of termination cannot be sustained—Hence, no interference made with award passed by Labour Court., 2019 (163) FLR (P&H H.C.) 1010
TERMINATION—
—Reinstatement in service—Award passed by Labour Court—In favour of respondent-workman—Single Judge upheld the award passed by Labour Court—In breach of sections 25-F(a) and (b) of Act, the relief of reinstatement is a rule—There is no illegality in award passed by Labour Court—Appeal dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (M.P. H.C.) 49
TERMINATION—
—Reinstatement—Without back wages—Services of respondent No. 2 terminated without complying with mandatory provisions of I.D. Act—Award of Labour Court modified by Single Judge and respondent has been held entitled for reinstatement with all consequential benefits but without back wages—Workman has given up claim for back wages—No illegality or perversity found in the order warranting interference—Appeals accordingly dismissed.
, 2019 (163) FLR (P&H H.C.) 965
TERMINATION—
—Retrenchment—Appellants have been in service ranging from 4 to 6 years—Terminations were illegal being in violation of section 25-F of Act—Keeping in view the submissions so made—Compensation amount increased from ` 1 lakh to 1.25 lakh to be paid to each of appellants/workmen, with interest., 2019 (163) FLR (Del. H.C.) 462
TERMINATION—
—Terms and Conditions of Appointment and Service Regulations, 1975—Regulation 24—Appellant was in employment for over eleven years—High Court has rightly held that the termination of appellant in terms of Regulation 24 of Regulations, treating the appellant as a temporary employee was not justified in law—And thus could not be sustained—Appellant shall be paid 10% back wages alongwith benefit of reinstatement., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 366
TERMINATION OF SERVICE—
Writ petition—A settlement arrived between management and workers—Respondent-company agreed to pay 50% of backwages as ordered by Labour Court—Claim made by petitioner rejected by Labour Court on ground of delay and laches which is not perverse or erroneous—Settlement not challenged—Nor the reference made on the basis of settlement challenged—No ground found to interfere with impugned order passed by Labour Court—Petitioners are willing to settle matter and would accept 50,000/- towards full and final settlement of claim., 2019 (163) FLR (Bom. H.C.) 241
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION—
Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952—Section 7-I—Writ petition—Original order passed by EPF Authority, Calcutta—Hence, Calcutta High Court only can exercise territorial jurisdiction., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 443
TRADE UNION—
Constitution of India, 1950—Article 227—Writ petition—To quash the impugned orders passed, by which registration of petitioner-union was cancelled and cancellation was affirmed—As the notice for submission of list of elected members was not answered—When no reply was filed against the notice, argument advanced on behalf of petitioner is not sustainable—And no relief can be granted to union which is not in existence., 2019 (163) FLR (Chhatt. H.C.) 473
TRADE UNION—
—Disposal of its properties—Existing members of Union decided to sell the landed property and buildings thereon, which was purchased by Union with contribution of its members—However, as per Ext. R 2(f) amendment, the Union is authorised to acquire properties and also to sell it as a whole or in parcels—Hence, in the light of amendments brought about to Bye laws of Union the objection raised is righly rejected., 2019 (163) FLR (Ker. H.C.) 254
U.P. CO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES SERVICE RULES, 1981—
Rule 61—Dismissal order—Of petitioner—On basis of report of Disciplinary Authority—Neither any witness/representative of management examined—Inquiry held illegal and is violative of principles of natural justice—Department must prove charges also by oral evidence—No oral inquiry held by department—Hence, impugned order passed by respondent authority is quashed—Petition allowed., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) (Sum.) 21
U.P. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
Sections 2 (1), 6-E and 6-F—U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957—Rule 29—Industrial dispute—Petitioner No. 2, President and office bearer of Union—Declined by management to grant/recognise him as a protected workman under Rule 29 of Rules—And management had already passed order of termination of services of petitioner—Challenged by petitioner-Union and petitioner No. 2—Petitioner No. 2 was already continuing as a protected workman earlier—Since no order passed further, it will be deemed that he had become the protected workman and he was liable to get it—If there is violation of section 6-E the remedy lies under section 6-F of Act and in raising an industrial dispute.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Utt. H.C.) 998
U.P. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 2(1)(iii)—Termination of employment treating him as surplus employee due to winding up—Is a result of illegal approach adopted by respondent—Award—Reinstatement by Tribunal with back wages—Petitioner though funded by financial Institutions—Not banking company—Section 2(1)(iii) of Act not attracted—And no infirmity found in award of reinstatement with 50% of back wages., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 434
U.P. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 2 (z)—Industrial Disputes Act, 1947—Section 2(s)—In order to determine whether an employee is a workman or supervisor—Relevant factors to be considered given—Initial burden is on employees to place evidence that they are workmen—They failed to prove that they are undertaking work of a workman—Evidence brought on record by employer to contradict the stand of employees not considered—Award is set aside., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 399
U.P. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 6-H (1)—Removal from service—Tribunal held it bad and directed reinstatement in continuity of service with full backwages and other benefits—Workmen claimed dues in application under section 6-H(1) of Act—Industrial
U.P. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
dispute is between the workman and employer company—Hence, recovery to be initiated against the Company and Director had no personal liability—Mention of name of petitioner in individual capacity patently illegal and violative of law—Principle of lifting of corporate veil, dealt with., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 659
U.P. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 6-N—Award—Passed by Labour Court—Challenged—Petitioner a muster roll employee w.e.f. 1.4.1995 and continued to work continuously with artificial breaks upto 1.12.1997 and his services were dispensed with orally without paying retrenchment compensation as per section 6-N of Act—Only because the project stood completed—No appointment order for engaging him produced by workmen—However, similarly situated workmen and even juniors were confirmed to be engaged in other projects—Court therefore, directs payment of compensation of ` 2,00,000/- to petitioner with retrenchment compensation and one month’s pay—Award is set aside—Petition partly allowed., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 655
U.P. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Section 6-N—Non-fulfilment of this requirement—Does not deprive a workman of other rights—That may be traceable to other statutory provisions of Act., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 808
U.P. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 6-N and 4-K—Evidence Act, 1872—Section 101—Question of onus of proof regarding factum of working—Requiring 240 days continuous service—Is the legal obligation on a party to prove the allegation made by him—In the case burden of proof having not been discharged by workman—He was not entitled to benefit of protection of section 6-N of Act and to relief which has been granted by Labour Court—Award not legally sustainable., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 1
U.P. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 6-N and 6-P—Industrial Disputes Act, 1947—Sections 25-F (b) and 25-FFF—Retrenchment—Termination —No doubt, the position of law is otherwise well-settled—That in case of a valid closure of an employer’s establishment—Procedure relating to retrenchment under the Act is not attracted—It applies only where the establishment is surviving and the services of workman are dispensed with in violation of provisions of sections 6-N and 6-P of Act, 1947—But in petitioner’s case there appears to be a difference—They have not gone through process of a formal closure—Hence, no case for interference with impugned award is made out—Writ petition is dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 813
U.P. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
—Sections 6-Q and 6-N—Reinstatement—Once juniors to him have been re-engaged as per particulars mentioned in impugned award—Labour Court has found the workman entitled to be reinstated by virtue of his rights flowing from section 6-Q of Act., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 807
UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICE—
Complaint filed by respondent-employee workman, when he had put in about 2-1/2 years in employment as a temporary driver, claiming permanency allowed by Industrial Court—Order challenged by Joint Director—Petitioner has not participated before Industrial Court—Respondent was engaged on contractual basis—Deeming fiction of permanency under Standing Order 4-C of Model Standing Orders would not be applicable—Petition is partly allowed—Impugned judgment of Industrial Court is set aside—Matter remanded to Industrial Court for fresh decision—MRTU and PULP Act, 1971.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Bom. H.C.–A.B.) 543
UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICE—
—Engaged by University and termination of services of large number of employees—Temporary workmen are entitled for equal pay for equal work—Having concluded that unfair labour practices were involved—There is no justification in denying benefit for prior period—That would be contradictory in
UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICE—
terms—Employees are all gainfully engaged and not found to be excessive or in surplus—University to fill up the sanctioned post by filling up vacant post—University must be restrained from terminating their services except by following due process., 2019 (163) FLR (Bom. H.C.) (Sum.) 9
UTTARAKHAND INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947—
Sections 3 and 3(b)—Notification dated 21.1.2017—Section 3 does not confer power on State Government to prescribe terms and conditions of employment for a period anterior to notification—Since the period for which the notification dated 21.1.2017 issued would come to an end on 30.9.2020—State Government shall issue a notification thereafter strictly in terms of section 3., 2019 (163) FLR (Utt. H.C.) 336
VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT—
Order for—Sustainability of—Petitioner moved an application seeking voluntary retirement under Scheme, 2002—No order passed till 21.10.2016—In the meantime petitioner was also granted five promotions and pay scales—In between Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2016 came into force—But till that date no order passed by Management accepting petitioner’s application under Scheme of 2002—Since, petitioner submitted his application under previous Scheme of 2002 to Company—In the meantime he was granted five promotional post/ pay scale by Management upto year 2012—Continued as such till date of passing of impugned order—Therefore, it would be assumed that Management needed services of petitioner and therefore order passed on petitioner’s application at the time when application submitted—Therefore, he had a legitimate expectation of being continued in service—Impugned order quashed—Petition allowed—Petitioner held entitled to continue in service with all consequential benefits., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) (Sum.) 4
WEST BENGAL SERVICE RULES, 1971—
Rule 75—Interpretation of—Rule 75 deals with retirement on attaining age of superannuation in public interest and voluntary retirement—Division Bench on 22.8.2014 has taken a correct view on merits—Has opined that according to Note 3 below Rule 75(aaa) of Rules every case of retirement under Rule 75 is to be examined by Appointing Authority on facts of case concerned—Extent of public interest involved in the case is to be examined by Appointing Authority—Opinion formed by Appointing Authority cannot be judicially reviewed.
, 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) (Sum.) 1
WORK CHARGED EMPLOYEE—
Petition seeking appellants to treat service rendered by them in work charge as regular and grant of consequential benefits with regard to time scale—Sustainability of—Employees appointed on work charge—Not entitled to service benefits available to regular employees—Government Order dated 2.12.2002 clearly provides that benefit would be available only to those employees who are regularized and available after regularization—Therefore, service rendered in work charge in State of U.P.—Could not have been considered for giving benefit as per Government Order dated 2.12.2002—Therefore, order passed by Single Judge not sustainable—Set aside—Appeal allowed., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) (Sum.) 22
WORKING JOURNALISTS AND OTHER NEWSPAPER EMPLOYEES (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT, 1955—
Sections 17 (1) and 17 (2)—Reference of dispute—Assistant Labour Commissioner (A.L.C.) referred the dispute—Provisions of sections 17(1) and 17(2) not to be read collectively but separately—There is stark difference between
WORKING JOURNALISTS AND OTHER NEWSPAPER EMPLOYEES (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT, 1955—
two sub-sections—Order passed by A.L.C. is illegal and without jurisdiction—State is directed to consider making of reference of dispute under section 17 of Act., 2019 (163) FLR (P&H H.C.) 59
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION—
Award by Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, passed against the owner alone and exempted the Insurannce Company of liability to pay the sum along with interest—However, there is no basis or justification to issue a recovery certificate against the Insurance Company for recovery of money due as compensation—Unless the award is modified—Impugned recovery certificate is therefore, manifestly illegal and liable to be quashed., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 176
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION—
—Claim of compensation—Claimant, a cleaner/handyman in vehicle, while unloading goods sustained injuries of compound fracture in his left thigh resulting in permanent disablement—His salary was ` 1500/- p.m.—Commissioner awarded compensation with interest of 9%—Appeal by Insurance Company—Commissioner does not have jurisdiction and authority to determine the loss of earning capacity—And in the judgment, the loss of earning capacity was assessed by Commissioner and not by any medical evidence—Which would not be sustainable—As the entire amount awarded had been deposited and withdrawn by workman—It will be futile to remand the matter back to Commissioner—But action may be taken against the Commissioner., 2019 (163) FLR (Gau. H.C.) 478
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923—
Section 2 (i) (1), Entry 21 of Schedule 1—Permanent physical disability—Respondent claimant was a workman and a driver—He was injured while in duty—Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation awarded compensation—Hence, instant appeal by Insurance Company—Held, having one leg amputated caused permanent disablement to the respondent-workman—He was not able to work as a truck driver any further and he had suffered 100% loss of his earning capacity—No interference with the order of Workmen’s Commissioner—Appeal dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (Gau. H.C.) 600
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923—
—Section 2 (m)—Husband of claimant was employed as a driver in vehicle and met with an accident in which he died—He was paid ` 100/- as daily wages and ` 20 as daily allowance—A compensation was awarded to claimant—Appeal—Daily allowance could not be included as a wage earned by workman—In view of section 2(m) of Act—Which was not considered by the Commissioner—Hence, it was an infirmity in judgment—Matter required to be remanded back to Commissioner., 2019 (163) FLR (Gau. H.C.) 700
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923—
—Section 3—Appeal filed against the impugned order—Impugned order of compensation payable by Insurance Company with interest—There is no evidence to establish that there is hundred percent loss of earning capacity on account of injuries received in accident—Hence, Commissioner, had no other option except to take disability certificate to determine the loss of earning capacity—Hence, no scope found for enhancing the compensation—Appeal is partly allowed—Appellant claimant is entitled to 12% interest without any rider or condition as imposed by Commissioner., 2019 (163) FLR (H.P. H.C.) 303
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923—
—Section 3—Claim—For compensation—Death during course of employment—Deceased was cleaner on truck—Sustained injuries and died while on duty—Claim by parents of deceased—Allowed by Commissioner with interest at 12%—Investigation Report of Insurance Company has rightly been disbelieved by Commissioner—Discrepancy in time of death in post mortem and accident
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923—
recorded in General Diary is not fatal—Finding of Commissioner of employment of deceased and cause of death of deceased is based on proper appreciation of facts and record and being a finding of fact not liable to be interfered., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 432
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923—
—Sections 4 (1) (b) and 22—Compensation—Injuries suffered during course of employment—Court below awarded compensation with interest at 12% from date of accident—After re-assessing the entire material on record and injury on head, fracture of both bones of left forearm and fracture of acetabulum right hip joint—Claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of ` 23,710/- and interest.
, 2019 (163) FLR (Kar. H.C.) 940
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923—
—Section 4 (1) (d)—Settlement—Workmen’s compensation—Claimant, a handyman in truck met with an accident—As per evidence and opinion of doctor sustained injuries on his head and below the knee joint of right leg—Commissioner awarded compensation with simple interest at 7.5%—Appeal—If the appellant and the workman-claimant arrive at a mutually agreeable settlement of compensation—And arrive at a settlement, which would meet the ends of justice—Such settlement is acceptable to the Court and would be covered by section 4(1)(d) of Act—Insurance Company is directed to pay as such., 2019 (163) FLR (Gau. H.C.) 702
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923—
—Sections 4-A (1) and (2)—Compensation—Statutory penalty—Liability of employer—Settled law—Even when employer fails to accept the liability—Tritely the liability to defray the statutory penalty is always fastenable upon the employer—Vis-à-vis the disabled workman or his successor in interest, as the case may be—Commissioner has assessed the statutory penalty at 50% of the compensation amount—There upon the impugned award does not suffer from any legal fallacy., 2019 (163) FLR (H.P. H.C.) (Sum.) 11
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923—
—Section 22—Claim filed by claimant under section 22—Appeal by Insurance Company against award of compensation—In favour of respondents/claimants No. 1 to 4—Cancellation of insurance policy subsequently—Since insurance policy was valid on date of accident—Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability only on ground that policy so issued was subsequently cancelled—Insurer has to intimate the owner by way of notice about cancellation of policy before the accident occurred., 2019 (163) FLR (H.P. H.C.) 488
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923—
—Sections 30, 3 and 4—Compensation—Awarded by Commissioner—Award of—Deceased was under stress and strain of employment while driving the truck for a long distance—Suffered sudden heart attack—Therefore, the impugned order passed by Commissioner is justified—No infirmity found in the impugned order of granting compensation—Has rightly awarded interest at 9%—No interference made with., 2019 (163) FLR (Raj. H.C.) 756