Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 493e37-YzJlY



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Description:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Applicability In case of appointment on job contract basis, reference under I.D. Act is not maintainable. E.C.I. Ltd. v. E.C.I ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:8344
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 29
Provided by: JKVA
Learn more at: http://xisspm.files.wordpress.com
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947


1
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
  • Applicability In case of appointment on job
    contract basis, reference under I.D. Act is not
    maintainable. E.C.I. Ltd. v. E.C.I. Service
    Engineers Union, AIR 2006 SC 2996
  • S. 2(j) Industry
  • Bihar Khadi Gramodyog Sangh is an industry.
    Gopalji Jha Shastri v. State of Bihar, (1983) 2
    SCC 4 1983 SCC (LS) 262
  • Bangalore Water Supply Sewerage Board v. A.
    Rajappa, (1978) 2 SCC 213 1978 SCC (LS) 215
  • (a) Where (i) systematic activity, (ii)
    organized by co-operation between employer and
    employee (iii) for the production and/or
    distribution of goods and services calculated to
    satisfy human wants and wishes, prima facie,
    there is an industry in that enterprise.
  • (b) Absence of profit motive or gainful
    objective is irrelevant, be the venture in the
    public, joint, private or other sector.
  • (c) The true focus is functional and the
    decisive test is the nature of the activity with
    special emphasis on the employer-employee
    relations.
  • (d) If the organization is a trade or business
    it does not cease to be one because of
    philanthropy animating the undertaking.

2
  • All organized activity possessing the triple
    elements, although not trade or business, may
    still be industry provided the nature of the
    activity, viz. the employer-employee basis, bears
    resemblance to what we find in trade or business.
  • The consequences are (i) professions, (ii)
    clubs, (iii) educational institutions, (iv)
    co-operatives, (v) research institutes, (vi)
    charitable projects, and (vii) other kindred
    adventures, if they fulfil the above triple
    tests, cannot be exempted from the scope of
    Section 2(j).
  • Real estate company is an industry. Karnani
    Properties Ltd. v. State of W.B., (1990) 4 SCC
    472
  • S. 2 (k) Industrial dispute
  • The dispute arising out of breach of certified
    standing orders (last come first go) is an
    industrial dispute and Civil court has no
    jurisdiction. Chief Engineer, Hydel Project v.
    Ravinder Nath, (2008) 2 SCC 350
  • An industrial dispute must be supported by a
    number of workmen or sponsored or espoused by
    the Union. There is no particular form prescribed
    to effect such espousal. Proof of support by the
    union may also be available aliunde. J.H. Jadhav
    v. Forbes Gokak Ltd., (2005) 3 SCC 202 Even an
    outside Union may espouse the case of a workman.
    Workmen v. Indian Express (P) Ltd., (1969) 1 SCC
    228 AIR 1970 SC 737

3
  • Employment and non-employment
  • Under the concept of employment the employee
    agrees to serve the employer subject to his
    control and supervision. On the other hand,
    non-employment being negative of the expression
    employment would ordinarily mean a dispute when
    the workman is out of service. When
    non-employment is referable to an employment
    which at one point of time was existing would be
    a matter required to be dealt with differently
    than a situation where non-employment would mean
    a contemplated employment. Workmen of Nilgiri
    Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd. v. State of T.N., (2004)
    3 SCC 514
  • Any person
  • Any person cannot be read without limitation
    and a person in respect of which the
    employer-employee relationship never existed and
    can never possibly exist cannot be the
    subject-matter of dispute between employers and
    workmen. Bongaigaon Refinery Petrochemicals
    Ltd. v. Samijuddin Ahmed, (2001) 9 SCC 557
  • S. 2 (Ka) Industrial establishment
  • Since there was no functional integrity in the
    sixty factories of the Company, the units had to
    be taken as one. Monthly Rated Workmen v. Indian
    Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., 1986 Supp SCC 79
  • S. 2 (l) Lock-out
  • The true test to determine whether it is closure
    or lock out is whether the closure was a device
    or pretence to terminate services of workmen or
    whether it is bona fide and for reasons beyond
    the control of the employer.

4
  • The duration of the closure may be a significant
    fact to determine the intention and bona fides of
    the employer at the time of closure but is not
    decisive of the matter. If a rigid view is taken
    that in case of a lockout there is only closure
    of the place of business whereas in case of a
    closure there is a closure of the business itself
    permanent and irrevocable the if an employer who
    has resorted to closure, bona fide wants to
    reopen, revive and re-start the industrial
    activity he cannot do so on the pain that the
    closure would be adjudged a device or pretence.
    General Labour Union (Red Flag), Bombay v. B.V.
    Chavan, AIR 1985 SC 297 1985 SCC (L S) 253
  • S. 2(oo) Retrenchment
  • S. 2(oo)(bb)
  • Termination of a workman having not completed
    240 days is not retrenchment. Bhogpur Co-op.
    Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Harmesh Kumar, AIR 2007 SC
    288. Onus of proving that the workman had worked
    for 240 days in 12 calendar months is on the
    workman, not the employer. Batala Co-op. Sugar
    Mills Ltd. v. Sowaran Singh, AIR 2005 SC 56
  • Termination of service of contract workers for
    specific period on completion of contract period
    is not retrenchment. Punjab State Electricity
    Board v. Sudesh Kumar Puri, AIR 2007 (Supp) 647
  • When a workman is terminated after 89 days on a
    regular basis and re-appointed after a gap of one
    or two days, it is unfair labour practice and in
    such cases provision of S. 2(oo)(bb) is not
    attracted. Haryana State Electronics Devpt Corpn
    v. Mamni, AIR 2006 SC 2427 (2006) 9 SCC 434.

5
  • Plea that termination of employment of workers
    employed against particular Scheme falls under S.
    2(oo)(bb) cannot be raised for first time in
    appeal before Supreme Court. Executive Engineer
    ZP Engg. Divn. V. Digambara Rao, AIR 2004 SC 4839
  • Retrenchment means the termination by the
    employer of the service of a workman for any
    reason whatsoever except those expressly excluded
    in the section. Section 2(oo)(bb) should be
    harmoniously construed with Sections 25-F, 25-G
    and 25-H. Punjab Land Development and Reclamation
    Corpn. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, (1990) 3 SCC
    682
  • S. 2(p) Settlement
  • The bipartite agreement authorized the Bank to
    stop the stagnation increment of the employee who
    is reverted on his own request after one year of
    his promotion. Thus when the employee requested
    for his reversion after one year of promotion, it
    was held that the Bank was right in stopping
    stagnation increment. However, it was held that
    the Bank cold not stop the employees promotion
    for all times to come because of his request
    reversion. C. V. Satheeshchandran v. General
    Manager, UCO Bank, AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1371
  • When a settlement applies to employees as on a
    cut-off date, it also applies to all employees
    appointed thereafter. Ceat Ltd. v. Murphy India
    Employees Union, AIR 2006 SC 2412

6
  • When employment was given to widow of a worker
    dying in harness on contract basis but at the
    instance of the Union, it was held that the
    contract was not a settlement. Indian Drugs and
    Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Devki Devi, AIR 2006 SC
    2691
  • Settlement can only be in writing. No oral
    agreement or pleading can vary, modify or
    supersede a written settlement. Fabril Gasosa,
    M/s v. Labour Commissioner, AIR 1997 SC 954
  • Settlement in course of conciliation proceeding
    is binding on all parties to industrial dispute,
    i.e. in case of employer, on his heirs,
    successors, or assigns and in case of workmen,
    all persons employed in establishment. Settlement
    by agreement between employer and workmen
    otherwise than in course of conciliation
    proceeding is not binding on workmen not parties
    to it . General Manager, Security Paper Mill,
    Hoshangabad v. R.S. Sharma, AIR 1988 SC 954
  • S. 2(q) Strike
  • Unless the strike is legal and justified,
    workmen are not entitled to wages. Syndicate Bank
    v. Umesh Nayak, AIR 1995 SC 319
  • Pendown strike is strike. Punjab National Bank
    Ltd. v. All India Punjab National Bank Employees
    Federation, AIR 1960 SC 160
  • S. 2(ra) Unfair labour practices

7
  • S. 2(s)
  • A workman employed on a part time basis but
    under the control and supervision of an employer
    is a workman in term of Section 2(s) of the Act,
    and is entitled to claim the protection of
    Section 25F. Divisional Manager, New India
    Assurance Co. Ltd. v. A. Sankaralingam, AIR 2009
    SC 309 (2008) 10 SCC 698
  • An employee appointed as Industrial Relations
    Executive has to draft management enquiry and to
    hold conferences with the advocates in relation
    to the company's acts. Being in the category of
    management staff Gr. II, his conditions of
    service were different than those provided for
    the workers of the Company. Leave given to him
    were not applicable under the settlement. He was
    covered under the Pension Scheme which did not
    apply under the settlement with employees. It was
    held therefore that he was not a workman. C.
    Gupta v. Galaxosmithklin Pharmaceutical Ltd., AIR
    2007 SC (Supp) 1244
  • Duty of a Legal Assistant is to supervise Court
    cases and whenever necessary to prepare draft
    reply of matters pending in Court. Such employees
    are professionals and cannot be termed as workman
    under any law. Muir Mills Unit of N. T. C. (U.
    P.) Ltd. v. Swayam Prakash Srivastava, AIR 2007
    SC 519 (2007) 1 SCC 491
  • Professional job involves creativity and is not
    stereotype. Professionals cannot be workmen.
    Management of M/s. Sonepat Co-op. Sugar Mills
    Ltd. v. Ajit Singh, AIR 2005 SC 1050 (2005) 3
    SCC 232

8
  • Housing Co-operating Society is not an industry.
    Its employees cannot be treated to be workmen as
    defined in S. 2(s). Md. Manjur v. Shyam Kunj
    Occupants Society, AIR 2005 SC 1501
  • An apprentice under the 1961 Act is not a
    workman. U.P. State Electricity Board v. Shiv
    Mohan Singh, AIR 2004 SC 5009
  • Employees of the Canteen maintained by NTPC as
    per statutory obligation under S. 46 of Factories
    Act are workmen of NTPC. National Thermal Power
    Corporation v. Karri Pothuraju, AIR 2003 SC 3647
  • Whether an Area Sales Executive is a workman has
    to be adjudicated by the Labour Court/ Industrial
    Tribunal. Government cannot decide the issue and
    refuse to make a reference. Sharad Kumar v. Govt
    of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2002 SC 1724
  • Commission amount received by Deposit Collectors
    was 'wage' linked to productivity. Deposit
    Collectors of Bank are therefore 'workmen.
    Indian Banks Association v. Workmen of Syndicate
    Bank, AIR 2001 SC 946
  • Medical representatives are not workmen.
    Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd. v. State of U.P., AIR
    2000 SC 3182 (2000) 7 SCC 675
  • R.B. I. is neither legally obliged to run
    canteen nor has effective control to supervise
    the work done by canteen employees. Such
    employees are not workmen of the R.B.I. Employees
    in relation to the Management of Reserve Bank of
    India v. Their Workmen, AIR 1996 SC 1241 (1996)
    3 SCC 267
  • Bank employee in clerical grade is a workman.
    Syed Azam Hussaini v Andhra Bank Ltd., AIR 1995
    SC 1352

9
  • Shop Manager/In-charge of a local shop of a big
    company discharging duties of administrative and
    managerial nature. He is not a workman though
    either incidentally he is required to do some
    clerical work or is not vested with power to
    appoint or discharge employees under him. S.K.
    Maini v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd., AIR 1994 SC 1824
  • Appraiser engaged by bank to appraise quality,
    purity and value of ornaments offered for
    pledging to bank is not a workman. Management of
    M/s Puri Urban Co-operative Bank v. Madhusudan
    Sahu, AIR 1992 SC 1452
  • A person performing duties requiring imaginative
    and creative mind and involving suggesting of
    ways and means to improve sales of company's
    product and publicity in markets and melas
    advertisements including need for posters,
    holders and cinema slides is not a workman. T.P.
    Srivastava v. M/s National Tobacco Co. of India
    Ltd., AIR 1991 SC 2294
  • Internal Auditor in company, only checking up
    on behalf of employer and having no independent
    right or authority to take decision, not doing
    supervisory work is a "workman. National
    Engineering Industries Ltd. v. Kishen Bhageria,
    AIR 1988 SC 329
  • Maintenance Engineer having power to grant
    leave, initiate disciplinary proceedings and make
    temporary appointments is not a workman. Vimal
    Kumar Jain v. Labour Court, Kanpur, AIR 1988 SC
    384.

10
  • Though school is industry, teacher employed in
    school is not workman. A. Sundarambal . Govt. of
    Goa, Daman and Diu, AIR 1988 SC 1700
  • Primary and basic duties and not incidental
    duties constitute the criterion for determining
    whether a person is a workman. Arkal Govind Raj
    Rao v. Ciba Geigy of India Ltd., AIR 1985 SC 985
    Piece rated Tailors working in big tailoring
    establishment are workmen. Shining Tailors v.
    Industrial Tribunal II, U.P., AIR 1984 SC 23
    Development Officer in Life Insurance Corporation
    is workman. S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra, AIR
    1984 SC 1462
  • Blending Supervisors in Burma Shell Oil Storage
    and Distributing Co. of India, Ltd. - Some are
    workmen and some are not. Burma Shell Oil Storage
    and Distributing Co. of India, Ltd. v. Burma
    Shell Management Staff Asscn., AIR 1971 SC 922.
  • S. 2-A
  • In enacting Section 2A the intention of the
    legislature was that a individual workman who was
    discharged, dismissed or retrenched or whose
    services were otherwise terminated should be
    given relief without its being necessary for the
    relationship between the employer and the whole
    body of employees and attracted to that dispute
    and the dispute becoming a generalised one
    between labour on the one hand and the employer
    on the other. Chemicals and Fibres of India Ltd.
    v. D.G. Bhoir, AIR 1975 SC 1660

11
  • S. 10 Reference of industrial dispute
  • A reference u/S. 10(1) cannot be used to
    circumvent or by pass the statutory scheme
    provided u/S. 25-N. Empire Industries Ltd., M/s.
    v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2010 SC 1389
  • Badli workers have no protection under the Act.
    Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v.
    T.V. Anandappa, AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1058
  • The Industrial dispute should be existing or
    apprehended at the time of reference. When the
    matter was sought to be raised seeking reference
    after seven years, it was held to be stale
    because at that time there was no industrial
    dispute. However when a matter can be said to be
    stale or delayed depends on the facts of the
    case, but a matter which has attained finality
    cannot be reopened. Haryana Land Reclamation and
    Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Nirmal Kumar, AIR 2008
    SC (Supp) 390 Manager (now Regional Director),
    R. B. I. v. Gopinath Sharma, AIR 2006 SC 2614
  • Although the only dispute was with regard to the
    regularization of the services of the contractual
    employees, it was open to the Industrial Tribunal
    to determine the nature of the employment as to
    whether the employees were employees of the
    contractor or the principal employer. G. M., O.
    N. G. C., Shilchar v. O. N. G. C. Contractual
    Workers Union, AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1994
  • When the principal question under reference was
    as to whether the termination of services of the
    seasonal worker was justified the Labour Court
    could not go into the question as to whether the
    Company was bound to take the services of the
    worker in all subsequent seasons or not. Bhogpur
    Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Harmesh Kumar, AIR
    2007 SC 288

12
  • A settlement was reached between the Bank and
    Association of majority of employees, not signed
    by Employees Federation representing minority of
    employees. Bank extended benefit under settlement
    to employees who were not members of Association
    on accepting the settlement in writing.
    Federation disputed the clause in settlement
    giving benefit only to members of the Association
    and action of Bank extending benefit to other
    employees on giving individual acceptance of the
    settlement. Such dispute was not industrial
    dispute. Reference of dispute by Govt. to
    Industrial Tribunal, was held not proper.
    Government order making reference can be
    challenged in writ petition if futility of the
    reference can be shown. ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd.
    v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 296.
  • Reference can be made only if a
    employer-employee relationship exists. ECI Ltd.
    v. ECI Service Engineers Union, AIR 2006 SC 2996
  • Question as to whether contract labour should be
    abolished or not cannot be the subject matter of
    reference. Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Union
    of India, AIR 2006 SC 3229
  • Dispute with respect to bonus payable or with
    respect to application of Bonus Act in public
    sector, is deemed to be an industrial dispute.
    Reference can be made for adjudication. A.P.
    Foods v. S. Samuel, AIR 2006 SC 3622.
  • Tribunal cannot decide disputes relating to
    non-workmen. Mukand Ltd. v. Mukand Staff and
    Officers Association, AIR 2004 SC 3905

13
  • Termination without payment of retrenchment
    compensation gives rise to industrial dispute.
    Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani, AIR 2002
    SC 1147
  • Question whether Area Sales Manager falls within
    definition of "workman" or not is an industrial
    dispute. Sharad Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
    AIR 2002 SC 1724
  • Industrial Tribunal is the creation statute and
    it gets jurisdiction on the basis of reference.
    Therefore it cannot go into the question on
    validity of the reference. National Engineering
    Industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2000
    SC 469

14
  • S. 11 and 11-A Powers of Labour Courts etc.
  • When a reference is made under Section 10 of the
    Act, all incidental questions arising thereto can
    be determined by the Tribunal. State Bank of
    India v. Ram Chandra Dubey, (2001) 1 SCC 73
  • Labour Court can consider the evidence already
    considered by the domestic tribunal and arrive at
    a conclusion different from the one arrived at by
    the domestic tribunal. Workmen v. Balmadies
    Estates, (2008) 4 SCC 517
  • Tribunal is duty-bound to consider whether back
    wages have to be awarded and if so, to what
    extent. P.V.K. Distillery Ltd. v. Mahendra Ram,
    (2009) 5 SCC 705
  • Grant of relief must depend on the fact
    situation. Therefore the Industrial Tribunal is
    not bound to grant some relief only because it
    will be lawful to do so. Manager, Reserve Bank of
    India v. S. Mani, (2005) 5 SCC 100
  • The Tribunal must attempt to strike a balance
    between the claim of the worker and situation f
    the employer. Laxmi Rattan Cotton Mills Ltd. v.
    State of U.P., (2009) 1 SCC 695 While doing so,
    it is necessary for the Industrial Courts also to
    consider as to whether the industry has been sick
    or not. If it is found that the industry is not
    in a position to bear the financial burden, an
    appropriate award, as a result whereof the
    equities between the parties can be adjusted,
    should be passed. Talwara Coop. Credit and
    Service Society Ltd. v. Sushil Kumar, (2008) 9
    SCC 486

15
  • It is not proper for the Tribunal to make an
    award as if appointing an incumbent to the post.
    Entitlement to a post can be determined only on
    the touchstone of relevant rules or on the basis
    that he is discharging such functions. When the
    findings are not clear as if the employee was
    functioning in the post to which claim is made,
    no relief could have been given. U.P. SEB v.
    Hydro-Electric Employees Union, (2002) 10 SCC 417
  • The Tribunal while deciding the issue of
    termination of the workers can go into the cause
    thereof to find out whether there was a closure
    and whether such closure was bona fide. J.K.
    Synthetics v. Rajasthan Trade Union Kendra,
    (2001) 2 SCC 87
  • Material on record in terms of Section 11-A of
    the Industrial Disputes Act will include enquiry
    report as well as further evidence led before the
    Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal cannot act as
    an Appellate Tribunal. West Bokaro Colliery
    (TISCO Ltd.) v. Ram Pravesh Singh, (2008) 3 SCC
    729
  • It is open to the Labour Court/Industrial
    Tribunal to interfere with the quantum of
    punishment for good and valid reasons where the
    workman concerned is found guilty of misconduct.
    L.K. Verma v. HMT Ltd., (2006) 2 SCC 269

16
  • S. 17, 17-A and 17-B
  • Provisions of S. 17(1) are directory.
    Publication of award beyond fixed time does not
    invalidate the award. Remington Rand of India
    Ltd. v. The Workmen, AIR 1968 SC 224
  • A Tribunal ordinarily makes its award operative
    from the date of reference but, in exceptional
    circumstances it gives retroactive operation to
    some of its proposals. Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd.
    v. The Workmen, AIR 1967 SC 948
  • S. 17(2) gives finality to an award. However
    Rule 28 (31 ?) provides for correction therein.
    It is only a clerical mistake or error which can
    be corrected, and the clerical mistake or error
    must arise from an accidental slip or omission in
    the award. It must be a mistake or error amenable
    to clerical correction only. It must not be a
    mistake or error which calls for rectification by
    modification of the conscious adjudication on the
    issues involved. Tata Consulting Engineers v.
    Workmen employed under them, AIR 1981 SC 599
  • Under S. 17-A of the Act, an award becomes
    enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the
    date of its publication under S. 17. The
    proceedings with regard to a reference under
    Section 10 of the Act are therefore, not deemed
    to be concluded until the expiry of 30 days from
    the publication of the award. Till then the
    Tribunal retains jurisdiction over the dispute
    referred to it for adjudication and up to that
    date it has the power to entertain an application
    in connection with such dispute. Radhakrishna
    Mani Tripathi v. L. H. Patel, AIR 2008 SC (Supp)
    928

17
  • Section 17-B has been enacted by Parliament with
    a view to give relief to a workman who has been
    ordered to be reinstated under the award of a
    Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal during
    the pendency of proceedings in which the said
    award is under challenge before the High Court or
    the Supreme Court. The object underlying the
    provision is to relieve to a certain extent the
    hardship that is caused to the workman due to
    delay in the implementation of the award. The
    payment which is required to be made by the
    employer to the workman is in the nature of
    subsistence allowance which would not be
    refundable or recoverable from the workman even
    if the award is set aside by the High Court or
    Supreme Court. Therefore the words "full wages
    last drawn are used. Therefore, the words "full
    wages last drawn" must be given their plain and
    material meaning and they cannot be given the
    extended meaning. Dena Bank v. Kiritikumar T.
    Patel, AIR 1998 SC 511
  • S. 22-24 Prohibition of strikes and lock-outs
  • Workman went on illegal strike. Although strike
    was subsequently called off, workman continued to
    disrupt working in the factory from within
    factory premises. Company declared Lock out. It
    was held that the lock out must be regarded as in
    consequence of the illegal strike and cannot be
    regarded as illegal even if provisions of S. 22
    were not complied with. Workmen were held not
    entitled to wages for the lock out period. H. M.
    T. Ltd. v. H. M. T. Head Office Employees'
    Assocn., AIR 1997 SC 585

18
  • The strength of a trade union depends on its
    membership. The right to demonstrate and,
    therefore, the right to strike is an important
    weapon in the armoury of the workers. But the
    right to strike is not absolute under our
    industrial jurisprudence and restrictions have
    been placed on it under sections 22 and 23 of the
    I.D. Act, 1947. Where no proceedings were pending
    before conciliation board, labour court or
    arbitration tribunal nor any settlement or award
    touching the striking workmen was in operation
    during the strike period, it was held that the
    strike was not illegal. B.R. Singh v. Union of
    India, AIR 1990 SC 1
  • Strike commenced within four days of conclusion
    of conciliation proceedings was held illegal.
    India General Navigation and Railway Co. Ltd. v.
    Their Workmen, AIR 1960 SC 219
  • If a conciliation proceeding is pending between
    one union and the employer and it relates to
    matters concerning all the employees of the
    employer, the pendency of the conciliation
    proceeding would be a bar against all the
    employees of the employer to go on a strike
    during the pendency of the said proceedings under
    S. 22 (1) (d). Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd.
    v. Jatin Chakravorty, AIR 1960 SC 1012
  • Pendency of a dispute between an individual
    workman as such and the employer does not attract
    the provisions of Section 23. It means that
    pendency of a dispute relating to an individual
    workman under Section 2A will not debar the other
    workers from going on strike. Chemicals and
    Fibres of India Ltd. v. D.G. Bhoir, AIR 1975 SC
    1660

19
  • Mere breach of a Standing Order could not render
    the strike illegal under Sections 23 and 24.
    Ballarpur Collieries Co. v. Presiding Officer, C.
    G. I. T. Dhanbad, AIR 1972 SC 1216
  • Strike called by the union ignoring conciliation
    proceedings, managements offer and request for
    deferring the strike for even one day was held
    illegal. Management of the Fertilizer Corporation
    of India Ltd. v. Workmen, AIR 1970 SC 867
  • S. 25-B Continuous service
  • Service rendered under two different
    establishments, although under one central
    management, cannot be clubbed to reckon continues
    service of 240 days in a calendar year. Haryana
    State Co-operative Supply Marketing Federation
    Ltd. v. Sanjay, AIR 2009 SC 3155
  • Completion of 240 days' work does not confer
    right of regularisation. Hindustan Aeronautics
    Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur Singh, AIR 2007 SC 2733
  • The expression "actually worked under the
    employer" cannot mean those days only when the
    workman worked with hammer, sickle or pen, but
    must necessarily comprehend all those days during
    which he was in the employment of the employer
    and for which he had been paid wages. Thus
    Sundays and other paid holidays should be taken
    into account for the purpose of reckoning the
    total number of days on which the workman could
    be said to have actually worked. Workmen of A. E.
    I. B. Corpn. v. Management A. E. I. B. Corpn.,
    AIR 1986 SC 458 However period of illegal strike
    has to be excluded. Management of Standard Motor
    Products of India Limited v. A. Parthasarathy,
    AIR 1986 SC 462

20
  • Section 25-B (2) comprehends a situation where a
    workman is not in employment for a period of 12
    calendar months, but has rendered service for a
    period of 240 days within the period 12 calendar
    months commencing and counting backwards from the
    relevant date, i.e., the date of retrenchment. If
    he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous
    service for a period of one year for the purpose
    of Section 25-B and Chapter V-A.
  • S. 25-C Compensation for lay-off

21
  • S. 25-F Conditions precedent for retrenchment
    (less than 1 year)
  • S. 25-FF Compensation for transfer of
    undertaking
  • S. 25-FFF Compensation for closing down of
    undertaking Badli worker
  • S. 25-G Procedure for retrenchment
  • S. 25-N Condition precedent for retrenchment
    (not less than 1 year)
  • S. 25-T Unfair labour practice
  • S. 33 Conditions of service not to change
  • S. 33-A Adjudication
  • S. 36 Representation in departmental
    proceedings

22
Employment Exchanges (Compulsory
Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959
  • S. 3 Applicability
  • S. 4 Notification of vacancies
  • S. 5 Returns

23
Employees Compensation Act, 1923
  • S. 3 Employers liability for compensation
  • S. 4 Amount of compensation
  • S. 4-A Payment of compensation
  • S. 5 Method of calculating wages

24
Payment of wages Act,1936
  • Sections 12 to 17 and 22

25
Payment of Bonus Act, 1965
  • Sections 4 to 9, 15 and 25

26
Factories Act, 1948
  • Section 41B,41C, 41H, 46, 67, 71, 85, 86, 93,
    96A, 97 and 101

27
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
  • Sections 2, 2A, 4A, 7 and 10

28
Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952
  • S. 7A
  • S. 7C
About PowerShow.com