Dismissal of the case by the
court is neither an award under I.D. Act nor determination of Industrial Dispute.
Rajman Shrikrishna Morya vs.
Marshal Security Pvt. Ltd. 2011 LLR 25 (Bom. HC)
Part-time employee is entitled to
protection under ID Act.
Himachal Pradesh State
Electricity Board and Anr. vs. Laxmi Devi and Anr. 2011 LLR 52 (HP HC)
Management is absolutely within
their powers to decline the recognition to charge sheeted union office bearer
as protected workman. Such employee is not entitled to be nominated by union
for recognition as protected workman under sec. 33(3) & (4) of ID Act
Hill Life Care Ltd. vs. Hindustan
Latex Union (AITUC) 2011 (128) FLR 471 (Kerala HC)
Reducing the pay by merging 50%
DA in basic would be illegal without complying with the Sec. 9A of the ID Act.
Sikh Educational Society vs.
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh. 2011
LLR 159 (P & H HC)
When the ID Act contemplates
several steps like conciliation before reference to labour court, High Court
can't circumvent the process and direct for reference for adjudication straight
way.
SPIC Pharma Employees Union
(SPEU), Cuddalore vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and Ors. 2011 LLR 275 (Mad.
HC)
Overtime can't be claimed under
sec. 33C(2) of the ID Act.
K.S. Natarajan, S/o. K.A.
Srinivasan, Chennai vs. (1) Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai
(2) Ananda Vikatan Vasan Publications Ltd., Chennai. 2010 (4) LLN 702 (Mad. HC)
For any breach of settlement,
matter of dispute is to be referred by the Govt. for adjudication under ID Act
since remedy is available under sec. 36A. Writ not maintainable.
Tamil Nadu Pokkuvarathu Kazhaga
T. Nala Sangam vs. Sate of Tamil Nadu. 2010 (128) FLR 688 (Mad. HC)
Since the establishment was
involved in manufacturing process of preparation of different articles from
forest, will be an industrial establishment under ID Act.
Kishan Atmaram Kasti vs. Forest
Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. & Ors. 2011
(I) CLR 971 (Bom. HC)
When relationship of
employer-employee between IIT and workman working in hostel is established,
claim of over time payment under sec. 33C(2) of ID Act rightly allowed by
Labour Court.
Indian Institute of Technology
vs. The Presiding of Officer & Ors. 2011 LLR 591 (Madras HC)
Termination of a workman who is
interested in pending dispute, without obtaining approval under section 33(1)
of I.D. Act will be illegal. Labour court was not justified in rejecting the
application of the workman without examining the legality.
Ashok Kumar Pradhan vs. Presiding
Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Orissa and Others. 2011 LLR 627 (Orissa HC)
Provisions of section 33C(1) of
I.D. Act include the payment arising out of chapter V-B and section 25-O. If
consequent of closure of industry, workers were not paid compensation, they can
very well claim the
amount under section 33C(1) of
I.D. Act.
M/s. United Soya Products Ltd.
vs. Dy. Labour Commissioner, Bhopal and Others. 2011 LLR 629 (MP HC)
When an industrial dispute is
raised belatedly, it is upon the workman to show that he was not responsible
for the delay.
Executive Engineer, Public Works
Department, Wardha vs. Namdeo Govindrao Nandurkar, Wardha. 2011-II CLR 46 (Bom.
HC)
Industrial Dispute between
workman & management of co-operative bank shall be decided exclusively by
the Labour Court prospectively from date of SC judgment on the point.
Nirmalchandra Sirvastav vs.
Labour Court, Varanasi. FLR (129) 2011 P. 370 (All. HC)
The jurisdiction of Industrial
Court is not ousted only because the employer denies relationship of employer
and employee.
Indo-European Brewaries Ltd. vs.
Dnyaneshwar s/o Shyamrao Dhanwate & Ors. CLR I 2011 P. 923 (Bom. HC)
Workman will be entitled to get
relief under section 33C(2) of I.D. Act for payment of difference of wages
reduced by the employer in contravention of section 9A of the I.D. Act.
Municipality Baretta, Bhatinda
vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda and Another. 2011 LLR 818
(P&H HC)
An offence under section 29 of the
Industrial Disputes Act for non-implementation of the Award will be
continuing and section 468 of
Criminal Procedure Code, providing for limitation, will not be applicable.
Joytirmay Roy vs. State of Bihar
and Others. 2011 (129) FLR 982 (Patna HC)
A legal practitioner, in the
capacity of an office-bearer of an Association, can represent an employer
before the Labour Court.
South Arcot Vallalar District
Mazdoor Union vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore and Others. 2011
(129) FLR 995 (Mad. HC)
In the absence of approval for
dismissal pending proceedings, the order of the management terminating the
services of workman becomes void ab initio.
Delhi Transport Corporation vs.
Sudan Pal. 2011 LLR 897 (Delhi HC)
When workman was discharging his
duties of driver after reinstatement, he will be paid current wages as paid to
others and not the last drawn wages at the time of termination.
S.G. Ramalingam vs. Management of
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd. 2011 LLR 979 (Mad. HC)
Under sec. 33C(2) of ID Act
labour court can interpret the settlement on which employee claim is based and
allow the claim.
Registrar, J.N.K.V.V., Jabalpur
and Others vs. Sudarshan Singh and Others. 2011 (130) FLR 130 (MP HC)
Claim application under sec.
33C(2) for more than last drawn wages not maintainable as it required further
adjudication.
Kagatila Sambasiva Rao vs. Labour
Court, Guntur, Guntur District and Others. 2011 (3) LLN 78 (AP HC)
Workmen are entitled to wages
from the date of termination where retrenchment was held illegal and such
claims of money under sec. 33C(2) rightly awared by court.
Dhanalakshmi Mills Ltd., Tirupur
vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore and Ors. 2011 LLR 1028 (Mad.
HC)
Labour court order is liable to
be quashed when claim under sec. 33C(2) was neither based on existing right nor
the award as adjudicated.
State of U.P. and Another vs. Ram
Sahai and Another. 2011 LLR 1103 (All. HC)
High Court is not expected to
reappriciate the evidence and interfere with the labour court award passed
under sec. 33(2)(b) in writ jurisdiction.
Delhi Transport Corporation vs.
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II & Anr. 2011 LLR 1113 (Del. HC)
Award after attaining finality
can't be disturbed under the garb of factual errors.
Hind Filters Employees' Union vs.
Factory Manager, Hind Filters Limited and Others. 2011 (130) FLR 675 (MP HC)
It is incumbent upon the workman
to submit application to the Labour Court praying for summons for production of
relevant record showing that he has worked continuously for a period of 240
days.
Mahesh Kumar Sharma vs.
Divisional Forest Officer, M.P. & Ors. LLJ (III) 2011 P. 136 (MP HC)
Reduction of wages cannot be made
without issuing a notice under section 9A of the Act.
Sikh Educational Society vs.
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal. FLR (128) 2011 P. 200 (P&H HC)
The labour court award without
appreciating the recorded evidence in right perspective is liable to be set
aside.
Krishan Kumar Nagar vs. The
Management of M/s. Delhi Transport Corporation. 2011 LLR 1191 (Del. HC)
Section 33B of U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 provides power to the State Government for withdrawing any
proceeding pending before a Labour Court and transfering the same to another
Labour Court, hence a Labour
Court can transfer a dispute to another Labour Court.
Meerut Development Authority,
Meerut vs. Labour Court, Saharanpur and Another. 2011(130)FLR 868 (All. HC)
The benefit that is payable under
section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is pre-existing benefit or
flowing from preexisting right.
Crompton Greaves Limited vs. S.B.
Lokhande and Others. 2011(130) FLR 908 (Bom. HC)
Compensation amounting to approx
7 years salary will be appropriate to the employee who worked little less than
a year.
Bindan Singh vs. Institute of
Company Secretaries of India. 2011(131) FLR 95 (Del. HC)
The benefit of overtime allowance
was being made available upto 1982 and again from 1987, but when the workmen
filed petition under section 33(C)(2) claiming this benefit during the interim
period, the denial thereto by the Management, on the basis of departmental
circular, is not justified and application is perfectly maintainable.
Faqir Chand vs. Food Corporation
of India and Another. 2011(131) FLR 164 (P&H HC)
Labour court is not empowered to
entertain a claim under sec. 33(C)(2) of ID Act which is not based on existing
right.
Mohan Nagpal vs. Editor,
Navbharat Times, New Delhi and Anr. 2011 III CLR 692 (P&H HC)
Conciliation Officer’s bounden duty
is either to record / register a settlement or to submit a failure report. He
has no power and jurisdiction to declare that a bipartite settlement will be
considered as binding
upon all workmen. Vidyut Metalics
Employees' Union, Thane vs. Vidyut Metalics Pvt. Ltd., Thane and Ors. 2011 LLR
1262
When the workmen received the
amount in terms of settlement without any protest, no claim under 33(C)(2) of
ID Act can be made by them. Status of petitioners as to whether they are
trainees or workmen can’t be decided under such application.
R. Udayakumar etc. vs. The
Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai and Anr. 2011 LLR 1265
(Mad. HC)
An ex-parte order by the Labour
Court, if not a speaking one and without findings on issues raised, is liable
to be quashed.
Management of Venkateswara
Electricals P. Ltd., Chennai vs. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court,
Chennai and Anr. 2010 (IV) LLJ 393 (Mad. HC)
In the absence of production of
complete pay roll, workman will be presumed to have worked for more than 240
days.
Divisional Forest Officer,
Bhiwani vs. Chameli (Smt.) and Others. 2011 LLR 206 (P & H HC)
For claiming closure compensation
workman has to prove that he has worked for 240 days during last 12 months.
Burden not to be shifted to employer.
VST Industries Ltd. vs. Presiding
Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar
District and Others. 2011 LLR 1170 (AP HC)
