Niyamskanoon

Posts

Showing posts with the label Labour Law

Sirsilk Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1964) 2 SCR 448: AIR 1964 SC 160

Sirsilk Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1964) 2 SCR 448: AIR 1964 SC 160 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Mr. Sonu Choudhary , a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University) . If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . Introduction We all have read Section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which places an obligation on the appropriate Government to publish the report or award made by any board or labour court or tribunal within 30 days of receiving such report or award. Also, we are well acquainted with Section 18(1) of the same Act which had been introduced by Act 36 of 1956. This, Section 18(1), states that any settlement made between the parties shall be binding to them. In the present case, a very interesting issue has come before the Apex court whereby a conflict between both the sections i.e. s.18(1) & s.17(1) has been raised. So please read this case summary

The Food Corporation of India Staff Union v. Food Corporation of India & Ors, 1995 ||Case Summary Introduction In the present appeal, the Supreme Court of India laid down some norms and procedures to be followed to get the correct results by the "Secret Ballot System" which is the method to examine which is the more powerful Union. Facts There were two registered Trade Unions in an Industry consequently, a situation arose before the employers to understand which was an powerful union or with whom they should bargain regarding terms, conditions etc. As a result, In the present appeal, the Supreme Court of India laid down the procedure be executed to get the correct results by the Secret Ballot System. Issue What are the guidelines which laid down by the Court in the present appeal? Supreme Court Order The Court while understanding the importance of this issue, took opinions from other Trade Unions or Organizations before passing the following guideline

Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu (1988) Case Study Introduction The case of Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu is a significant judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India in 1988. This case dealt with the issue of whether a teacher employed in a private school could be considered a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Facts of the Case The appellant Sundarambal, a teacher employed in a private school, was terminated from her service and therefore sought relief under the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming that she was a workman and hence, entitled to protection under the Act. Case History The Petition was filed before the Conciliation Officer where Conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation officer reported this matter to the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu. The Government could not adjudicate this matter under section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 while holding that the appellant (Teacher) does not

Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra Citation : AIR 1957 SC 264 F acts Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. (the appellant) employed certain agarias at their salt works. The dispute arose regarding the conditions under which the agarias should be engaged by the appellant in the manufacture of salt. Therefore the dispute was presented before the Industrial Tribunal. Appellant Contentions The agarias were independent contractors and not workmen on the ground that the agarias had power to engage extra labour therefore the State was not competent to refer the present case for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act. Issue Whether the agarias are workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947? Case History The Industrial Tribunal favoured the respondent (Agarias) while holding that the Agarias are workmen within the meaning of the Act. The Labour Appellate Tribunal also while dismissing the appeal favoured the responden

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) Case Summary Facts In this landmark case, the female workers employed on a muster roll basis by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) filed a petition seeking maternity benefits. The female workers argued that they should be entitled to the same maternity benefits as regular employees under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. Issue Whether female workers employed on a muster roll basis are entitled to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961? Respondent's Contentions 1. Right to Maternity Benefits : The petitioners contended that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which provides maternity benefits to female workers, should be applicable to them despite their muster roll status. 2. Equality and Non-discrimination: They argued that the denial of maternity benefits to muster roll female workers was discriminatory and violated their right to equality under Article 14 and right to life and personal liberty

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th

State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh (2005) Case Summary Introduction The present appeal along with other connected cases was made to this 5-Judge Bench on the reference of the 3-Judge Bench of this Court. Factual Background Jai Bir Singh and other respondents were employed by the Uttar Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation (UPSWC), a statutory corporation. Their services were terminated without a formal inquiry or adherence to procedures laid out in the Industrial Disputes Act, of 1947. The respondents challenged their termination, claiming it was unjust and that they were entitled to protections under the Industrial Disputes Act as "workmen." Case History This case was referred by the three-judge Bench of this Court to a five-judge Bench after finding different opinions by this Court in two different cases over the same issue of whether the "Social Forestry Department" of State which is a welfare scheme would be covered by the definition of "industry"

Rohtas Industries Staff Union v. State of Bihar, AIR 1963 || Case Summary What we will learn Whether the "industrial disputes" cover a dispute raised due to the loss of the employers caused by the strike of the employees. Whether the workers had committed the tort of conspiracy. Whether the workers, who participated in an illegal strike, were protected by S.18 of the Trade Union Act. Whether the company has the right of civil action for damages against the worker. Facts The petitioner, a registered trade Union known as the Rohtas Industries Mazdoor Sangh, went on a strike against the non-payment of bonus and non-implementation of the Shri Jee Jee Bhoy's award by the respondents. The strike ended on an agreement between the parties in which they agreed to settle their dispute through arbitration, as provided under S.10A of the Industrial Dispute Act. The main issue before the arbitrators was whether the workers were liable to get payment for the period of the strike or

R.S. Ruikar v. Emperor, 1935 Case Summary/Brief Facts The appellant was the President of the Nagpur Textile Union, who organized a strike against the Empress Mills, Nagpur for not fulfilling certain conditions settled by them in a previous strike. The appellant in order to make the strike more impactful and to get the involvement of larger members encouraged the members to picket at the mills through speeches. Also, on a complaint from female members, of the harassment by the police, the appellant posted his wife on the gate of a mill with instructions to beat, with her slippers, anyone who interfered with her. The charges under S.7 of the Criminal Amendment Law were made against him for the abetment of picketing and a conviction order was made by the Court. Hence the appellant made a revision petition. Issues Whether the Court was right in making the conviction order. Whether the appellant will get the benefit of S.17 of the Trade Union Act. Contentions of the Appellant By referring

In Re Inland Steam Navigation Worker’s Union, AIR 1936 || Case Summary Facts An application for the registration of the "Inland Steam Navigation Worker’s Union", formed by the employees of all Inland Steamer Services, was rejected by the Registrar on the ground of a declaration made by the General Sec. of the Inland Steam Navigation Worker's Union that this Union was formerly known as RSN and LGN and Ry. Workers' Union which have been declared unlawful under S. 16 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, and had been banned. Therefore the appellant came here under S.11 of the Trade Union Act. Issue Whether the Registrar of the Trade Union was right to pass a decision after relying on the letter presented before the Bengal Government. Ratio Decidendi The Registrar must have to notify and provide an opportunity to defend to the appellant before rejecting the application on the basis of the letter. Section 8 of the Trade Union Act empowers the Registrar to refuse a

The Tamil Nadu Non-Gazetted Government Officers’ Union, Madras v. The Registrar of Trade Unions, AIR 1962||Case Summary Facts The appellant Union was a Service Association of all the Non-gazetted Officers of the Madras Government except the executive officers of police and prison departments. Ten members of the association made an application to the Registrar for registration as a Trade Union. The Registrar rejected the application on the ground that the said association of ministerial employees cannot claim registration as a trade union. Case History In an appeal under S. 11 of the Trade Union to the Court of Learned Judge Rama Chandra Iyer, w hile upholding the order of the Registrar said:- "Workman" under S. 2(h) of the Trade Union Act includes only manual laborers and workers and does not include civil servants. The concept of collective bargaining which is the rationale behind trade unions does not apply to government servants. Also, a trade union has the r

Rangaswami v. Registrar of Trade Unions, AIR 1962||Case Summary Facts Persons employed at Raj Bhavan of Guindy and Ootacamund, Tamilnadu as domestic helpers, gardeners, and maistries formed a Trade union and applied for its registration before the registrar of Trade Union, Madras. Although all of them were appointed and controlled by the Comptroller, only the domestic helpers were entitled to the pension. Case History The Registrar rejected the application for registration on the ground that members were not associated with a trade or business, which is essential to form a trade union as per S.2(h) of the Trade Union Act, 1926. The petitioner made an appeal under S.11 of the Trade Union Act of 1926. Petitioner Contention The term "Workmen" means one employed in an industry. Although the definition of an Industry is not given in the Trade Union Act Industry, as per S.2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act includes the services provided by the workers as they were not only serving

Search This Blog

Niyamskanoon

Posts

Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Sirsilk Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1964) 2 SCR 448: AIR 1964 SC 160

The Food Corporation of India Staff Union v. Food Corporation of India & Ors, AIR 1995 SC 1344.

A. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu AIR 1988 SC 1700

Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra AIR 1957 SC 264 : 1957 SCR 152

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) AIR 2000 SC 1274

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh (2005) 5 SCC 1

Rohtas Industries Staff Union v. State of Bihar AIR 1963 Pat. 170

R.S. Ruikar v. Emperor AIR 1935 Nag. 149

In Re Inland Steam Navigation Worker’s Union, AIR 1936

The Tamil Nadu Non-Gazetted Government Officers’ Union, Madras v. The Registrar of Trade Unions, AIR 1962

Rangaswami v. Registrar of Trade Unions, AIR 1962