CURRENT LABOUR
REPORTS
A.P. Departmental Enquiries
(Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1993 - Sections 4 and 5 - In the departmental
enquiry being held against the petitioner, the complainant, and other witnesses
not present though summoned - The enquiry officer took coercive steps u/s. 5 of
the Act on the letter of District and Sessions Judge - Petitioner found guilty
of the misconduct and dismissed from service - In this writ he challenged the
impugned order of dismissal - Held that it is not legal for the District Judge
to issue such a letter, as he is not
the nominated officer under the Act - Only the Registrar of the High Court is
authorised to exercise powers u/s. 5 of the Act, who can authorise enquiry
officer in relation to disciplinary matters against the members of judicial
service, to take coercive steps to secure presence of witnesses for the
purposes of enquiry.
M. Kanakaiah v.District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar & Anr. 2002 II CLR 290 (A.P.H.C.)
A.P. Industrial Disputes
Rules, 1958 - Rule 17- Civil Procedure
Code, 1908 - Order 20, R.1 - Jurisdiction - Whether the Labour Court can
reopen a case reserved for Judgment? - Yes, it has jurisdiction to reopen the
case (closed for judgment), to enable the parties to adduce further evidence
and mark documents - Proceedings before Labour Court can be held concluded only
on passing of award - Order of Labour Court, allowing those applications, in
exercise of its discretion and to meet ends of justice, held valid - Neither it
is perverse, nor illegal.
Hindustan
Machine Tools Ltd., Hyderabad v. T. Bal Reddy & Anr. 2002 II CLR 341 (A.P.H.C.)
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Jurisdiction to decide disputed questions of fact - Respondent no.4 approached MAT against order of her superannuation earlier than as per her birth date recorded in service record - Tribunal held in her favour on technical ground but disputed question of her correct birth date was not decided - Hence this petition by original respondent no.4 who had succeeded to the post of the petitioner - It is held that the disputed question of fact as to the correct date of birth has to be properly decided by the Tribunal which is the Court of original jurisdiction and should be done before 30.4.2002. Impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside.
V.D. Chavan (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2002 II CLR 329 (Bom.H.C.)
Appointment - Compassionate -
Petitioner's husband who was Assistant Sub- Inspector, RPF, Central Railway
died in harness in an accident leaving petitioner and two minor daughters -
Petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was denied as she is paid
legal dues of her husband and is also being paid pension - Central
Administrative Tribunal rejected her claim and hence this petition - While
setting aside Tribunal's order, it is held that denial of compassionate
appointment was not on valid ground and direction is given to consider her case
within framework of rules within 3 months.
Phoolkumari Gupta v. Union of India, through General Manager, Central Railway & Anr. 2002 II CLR 361 (Bom.H.C.)
Qualification held - Proper
Selection - Consultation with Public Service Commission after 6 years -
Government considered said period as probation and not counted for seniority -
Whether justified - Held: Under the Rules, appointment to the concerned post of
assistant engineer could be made by the State Government only after
consultation with Public Service Commission, that appointment without such
consultation would not enure to the benefit of the appointee for the purpose of
reckoning his seniority in the cadre and cannot be held to be a substantive
appointment in the cadre, and therefore, Government was fully justified in not
considering the said period of six years for the purpose of reckoning seniority
of Shri Tyagi in the cadre of Assistant Engineers.
Ramesh P. Bhatnagar & Anr. v. State of U.P. 2002 II CLR 322 (S.C.)
Award - Settlement pending
reference between respondent company and respondent No. 2 representative Union
- Award in terms - Petitioner, another Union, challenges on grounds that
settlement is contrary to S.115-A of B.I.R. Act, 1946 and also because
settlement provides matters not covered by demands referred for adjudication -
Held: So far as S.115-A is concerned the apprehension of petitioner is
misplaced and the Tribunal has not granted reliefs in respect of matters not
referred for adjudication.
Bharatiya Kamgar Sena v. Spentex
Industries Ltd. 2002 II CLR 392
(Bom.H.C.)
S.42(4) - Petitioner is dismissed
from service by respondent after domestic enquiry - Petitioner gave approach
notice and filed application challenging his dismissal - Labour Court passed an
award directing reinstatement and full back wages - In appeal, Industrial Court
set aside Labour Court's order and dismissed petitioner's claim on the ground
that he cannot raise any ground other than those mentioned in approach notice -
He relied on Judgment of Labour Appellate Tribunal 1957 I LLJ 148 - Hence this
petition - High Court set aside the Judgment of Industrial Court after holding
that the above Judgment of LAT is no more good law and it is open to employee
to raise all such contentions in the application before Labour Court which he
may not have taken or written in the letter of approach. At this stage parties
entered into settlement, which is taken on record, and writ petition is
disposed of.
Umashankar D. Shukla v. New Shakti Dye Works P. Ltd. 2002 II CLR 430 (Bom.H.C.)
S.78(1) - Labour Court
held preliminary issue as to whether order of termination dt.1.12.1998 is in
violation of S.78(1) of the Act in the negative and Industrial Court in appeal
confirmed the same and hence this petition - Held: Labour Court has held that
respondents have satisfactorily explained delay and Industrial Court has
confirmed the same and in this proceeding under Art.227 the Court will not reappreciate facts unless
it is pointed out that relevant facts have not been considered or ignored
and/or documentary evidence not on record has been appreciated. Petition is
dismissed.
Bhalchandra Dhondu Amberkar v. Dombivli Nagri Sahakari Bank Ltd. 2002 II CLR 363 (Bom.H.C.)
Constitution of India, 1950 -
Retrenchment - Appellants -petitioners initially joined Government Glass
Factory and eventually opted to be the employees of Respondent-Corporation,
w.e.f. 1-4-1976, after it took over the said Government Glass Factory -
Appellants retrenched in 1984 - They made representations, which were not
attended to by the respondents - The Writ Petition filed by them was rejected
by Learned Single Judge - Hence this writ-appeal - Held by the Division Bench
that (i) They are covered by Employees Provident Fund Scheme but not to
pension; (ii) On their opting to be the employees of Respondent-Corporation,
they ceased to be the employees of Government; (iii) They cannot claim parity
with other employees who, though worked in the Corporation, continued to be
employees of State Government having not opted to the service of Corporation.
R. Tata Rao & Anr. v. A.P. Small Scale Industries Development
Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad & Ors. 2002 II CLR 285 (A.P.H.C.) Arts. 14, 16, - Pay- scale - Petitioner who joined
as a temporary gardener with respondent Gram Panchayat in 1977 on a fixed
monthly salary of Rs. 200/- claimed pay equivalent to regular employees of
Panchayat and State Government - In this Writ he claimed the said relief - Held
that initial entry of the petitioner in service was by back-door entry and thus his appointment is
contrary to Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India - Moreover no permanent
post was sanctioned by Panchayat - Benefit asked by the petitioner for pay of
regular employee, cannot be granted in view of his irregular appointment.
Bavaji Mohanbhai Karsanbharti v. Maliya-Hatina Gram Panchayat Anr. 2002 II CLR 493 (Guj.H.C.)
Art.226 - Imposition of
penalty by disciplinary authority and appellate authority - Branch where
petitioner worked, had bad performance - Inquiry ordered - Petitioner held
guilty of certain lapses, which amounts to misconduct - For Bank employee word
`misconduct' means breach of strict discipline - Held in instant case, penalty
imposed is found to be disproportionate - Indicates non-application of mind -
Appellate authority directed to reconsider the matter.
Ramesh Chander Vashisth v. Chief
General Manager, State Bank of India
& Anr. 2002 II CLR 473 (Del.H.C.)
Art. 226 - Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 - Ss.33, 33-A - Main Dispute - Ref. No. 463 of 1991 seeking
regularisation of workers i.e. daily wagers in the background of settlement dated
22.8.1980; pending - As the appellant-University imposed a change i.e. extra
holidays and deprived work and wages, complaints u/s.33-A of I.D. Act were
filed on behalf of the said 65 workers - daily wagers, it being in
contravention of provisions of S.33 of the I.D. Act, during the pendency of the
said proceedings i.e. Reference - Tribunal held that the said alteration in the
conditions of service during the pendency of proceedings, was to the prejudice
of the workmen - Tribunal thus passed an award and in effect nullified the
impact of change in respect of such workmen - Complainants who had completed
more than 240 days of work during each of three years of service - Petitions
challenging those Awards were dismissed by the learned Single Judge and University directed to pay the respective original
complainants wages for extra weekly holidays and also for 11 days of unpaid
Diwali holidays - Hence these writ appeals, challenging the order of learned
Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions - The Division Bench upheld the view
taken by the Tribunal and learned Single Judge, with these observations: i) The
contravention of the provisions of S.33 of the Act was the foundation for
exercise of power u/s.33-A of the Act; ii) Mere violation of restrictive provisions
of S.33(1) of the Act shall vitiate the action of altering the conditions of
service and nothing more may be required to hold the alteration to be illegal
and inoperative, if the provisions of S.33(1) are applicable in the facts of
the case; iii) It cannot be said that the change in condition of service was in
regard to a matter which was not connected with the dispute; iv) To call it a `no change in service' for a daily
wager is nothing but a travesty of justice; v) If the conditions and stipulations
of the settlement dated 22- 8-1980 had continued to be operative, the
complainant workmen would have become permanent on completion of three years of
continuous service and would have been entitled to work for six days in a week;
vi) The impugned directions are eminently just and reasonable and within the
discretion and jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal, requiring no interference
by this Court.
Gujarat Agricultural University v. All Gujarat Kamdar Karmachari Union 2002 II CLR 423 (Guj.H.C.)
Art. 226 - Laches -
Petitioners retrenched in 1984 by the Respondent Corporation (as its employees)
and paid retrenchment compensation and terminal benefits - In 1993 they filed
writ petition, challenging the impugned retrenchment, on the ground that they
received the terminal benefits under protest and they must be absorbed in
government service as they were taken to Corporation on closure of Government
Glass Factory - Writ petition dismissed on the ground of laches - Hence this
writ appeal - Division Bench held that once writ petition is admitted it should
not be dismissed merely on the ground
of laches, but be disposed of on merits - Also held that on record there is
nothing to show that they had received the amounts under protest - Making
repeated representations does not provide an excuse for long delay - No case
made out for interference.
R. Tata Rao & Anr. v. A.P. Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad & Ors. 2002 II CLR 285 (A.P.H.C.)
Art. 226 - Promotion -
Petitioners challenge the order of promotion made on 28th February, 2001 from
the posts at E4 level to E5 and from E5 level to E6 level by holding
interviews, which procedure is ultra vires - Held that it is abuse of the
process of law.
Narendra Kumar and Five Ors. v.
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation 2002 II CLR
539 (Guj.H.C.)
Art. 226- Railway Protection
Rules 1987, Rule 146 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec.384 r/w 34 - Criminal
proceedings and departmental proceedings - holding both simultaneously - In
these two writ petitions, petitioners seek stay of the disciplinary proceedings
against them, till the completion of the trial in criminal cases lodged against
them - Held that (i) disciplinary proceedings cannot be stayed as a matter of
course - (ii) No hard and fast strait- jacket formula valid in all cases (iii)
in the instant case nature of charges against petitioners not identical in
disciplinary and criminal proceedings-charge in criminal case is for extortion,
while disciplinary proceedings initiated on account of gross negligence and
serious misconduct; (iv) acquittal in criminal case would not affect
continuance of disciplinary proceedings.
Mahabir Singh and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 2002 II CLR 484 (Del.H.C.)
Art. 226 - Railway Protection
Rules 1987, Rules 153, 217, 248 - Depart-mental Enquiry - Inquiry Officer -
His competence - Appellate Authority and its jurisdiction - In the departmental
enquiry, the enquiry officer concluded that the serious charge of tarnishing
the image of the R.P.Force is proved against the petitioner which calls for
deterrent disciplinary action - Disciplinary Authority, directed compulsory
retirement of the petitioner with immediate effect - In the statutory appeal
filed by the petitioner, appellate authority held the proceedings to be vitiated
on account of the incompetency of the
enquiry officer - Appellate Authority ordered reinstatement of the petitioner
in service with an option to the disciplinary authority to order fresh enquiry
and to take further action as deemed appropriate - This part of the order of
the appellate authority is challenged in this writ petition, claiming that it
is beyond the jurisdiction of the appellate authority - Held that (i) reliance
on Rule 153.2 by the petitioner is misplaced; (ii) the interpretation of rule 217.3
as sought by the petitioner, would lead to absurdity and according to rules of
interpretation, it has to be avoided; (iii) it is difficult to hold that there
has been any arbitrariness on the part of the appellate authority in passing
impugned order.
Bhisham Singh v. Union of India & Others 2002 II CLR 489 (Del.H.C.)
Art. 226 - Seniority and
backwages - Petitioner appointed as a multi-purpose health worker in
December 1988, terminated on 6-1-1992 - While challenging the said termination,
petitioner also sought a chance to appear before Selection Committee and
regularisation of his service in terms of government circular, dated 20.3.1992
- Learned Single Judge upheld the order of termination dt. 6.1.1992, but partly
allowing the petition, ordered that petitioner be considered for appointment
(afresh) with all consequential benefits except the financial benefits for the
period 4.10.1996 to 1.2.1999 - Hence in this writ appeal by the petitioner who
seeks backwages and seniority from the date of initial appointment, denied to
him - Division Bench upheld the termination dt. 6.1.1992 in view of the
violation of the condition of appointment (by the petitioner) - Hence no
question of granting reinstatement, backwages or seniority from that date, arises
- Challenge to the judgment of learned Single Judge by the respondent State was
on the interim direction allowing the
petitioner to apply (afresh) for selection ...... on the basis of
inclusion in the select list - rejected by the D.B. as in its opinion, impugned
judgment and order was eminently just, logical and reasonable.
Pravinsinh Dolatsinh Rana v. State of Gujarat 2002 II CLR 297 (Guj.H.C.)
Arts. 226, 227 -
Misappropriation of Cash - Criminal proceedings also initiated against delinquent
- cashier - Case dismissed on Police Investigating Officer filing "B"
report - that order not challenged by the Corporation - That does not
disentitle the Corporation from proceeding against delinquent employee, who
admitted his guilt in domestic enquiry.
N.
Gopal v. Karnataka Power Transmission
Corporation Limited, Bangalore and Anr. 2002 II CLR 530 (Karn.H.C.)
Art. 227 - Suo motu powers of
High Court - Petitioner, a
temporary gardener with respondent from 1977, terminated w.e.f. 30-8-1979- His
civil suit for declaration, challenging illegal termination and for wages on
par with regular employees, dismissed by the trial Court, but decreed in appeal
by the District Court, Junagadh and granted declaration that he continues in
service on consolidated salary- In this writ petition, he claims that
continuing him still on consolidated salary by the Gram Panchayat, is ultra
vires of the provisions of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution - Held that
District Court erred in setting aside the Resolution of the Gram Panchayat,
discontinuing the petitioner w.e.f. 30-8-1979, since his very appointment is
contrary to provisions of Arts. 14 & 16 of the Constitution - High
Court cannot perpetuate illegality, nor
it will confer legality on the impugned Resolution, which is ab initio void and
contrary to the provisions of the Constitution- also held that this is a fit
case to exercise suo motu powers of the High Court under Art.227 of the
Constitution to set aside the judgment of the District Court.
Bavaji Mohanbhai Karsanbharti v. Maliya-Hatina Gram Panchayat Anr. 2002 II CLR 493 (Guj.H.C.)
Art. 311(2) - Dismissal from
service - Appellant working as an SSB Personnel was dismissed from service
(i) for not discharging his duties properly and (ii) for the misconduct i.e.
refusal to accept seven days confinement awarded upon him - His suit
challenging the order of his dismissal, was rejected in Appeal by the District
Judge, West Tripura - Hence this second appeal, challenging his dismissal and
the adverse judgment of the District Judge - His main allegation was absence of
opportunity of hearing to him by not providing of defence assistant - Held that
record shows that delinquent-appellant adamantly declined to participate in the
disciplinary proceedings and hence the said allegation even if true, would not
vitiate the proceedings - No interference called for.
Sailendra Kumar Dey v. Union of India 2002 II CLR 507 (Gau.H.C.)
Contempt of Court - State Government passed an order denying
benefits of pension scheme to teaching and non-teaching staff of
Institutions/Colleges under respondent - In earlier writ petition the said
order was set aside and State Government was directed to consider extension of
such benefits in a phased manner - State Government once again took decision
not to grant such benefits because of financial restraints - Hence this
contempt petition - It is held that it cannot be said that there is any
violation in respect of earlier order and much less there is any wilful or
deliberate violation thereof and hence contempt petition stands rejected.
Suresh Srikrishna Naik (Dr.) v. Department of Social Welfare, State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2002 II CLR 400 (Bom.H.C.)
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - S.10 - Contract Labour - Abolition and Regularisation - Respondent union represent workmen working in disposal of solid waste in appellant Corporation - Respondent filed writ petition alleging that said workmen are employees of appellant but show is made that they are contract labourers, that work they are doing is of perennial nature, that contract labour be abolished and that the said workmen be treated as direct employees of appellant-High Court allowed the writ petition and gave directions for abolition of contract labour and absorption of concerned workmen-Supreme Court, in this appeal, held that directions of the High Court not being consistent with constitution bench Judgment in SAIL case 2001 III CLR 349 cannot be sustained and impugned judgment and order of High Court are set aside leaving it open to the respondent union to seek remedies available in terms of para 125 of the aforesaid SAIL judgment before the State Government or the industrial adjudicator as the case may be. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. K.V. Shramik Sangh & Ors. 2002 II CLR 299 (S.C.)
S.10 - Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 - S.25-F - Contract Labour - Absorption in regular service -
Contractor engaged casual labourers for specific period for a particular job -
Whether they can claim absorption in regular service and/or claim retrenchment
amount u/s. 25-F of I.D. Act - Held, not entitled.
Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad v. K. Penta Reddy & Ors. 2002 II CLR 347 (A.P.H.C.)
Disciplinary Proceeding - Vigilance enquiry after exoneration in
enquiry on same facts - Challenge to - It is held that vigilance enquiry is
in the nature of preliminary enquiry and petitioner can have no grievance in
respect of the same and there is absolutely no bar to holding a fresh enquiry,
even assuming that he was exonerated earlier, provided there is some fresh
material.
Daya Shanker Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. 2002 II CLR 317 (All.H.C.)
Dismissal - Of process-server from judicial service
- In the departmental enquiry held against the petitioner, the enquiry officer
gave a report that the charge against the petitioner delinquent was not proved,
as the complainant on whose complaint enquiry started and other witnesses who
appeared during the course of preliminary enquiry, were not present though
summoned - District Judge, the Disciplinary Authority ignored the report of the
enquiry officer and ordered fresh enquiry by issuing a letter, directing to
take coercive steps to secure the presence of complainant and other witnesses -
District Judge did not issue any show cause notice to the delinquent petitioner
for differing with the finding of the enquiry officer - Enquiry Officer made
further enquiry based on the said letter and gave a fresh report, holding that
charge against the petitioner stands proved - District Judge issued the order
of dismissal of the petitioner from service, on the basis of the said (Second)
report of enquiry officer - Petitioner's appeal before the High Court,
challenging the impugned order of his dismissal was rejected - Hence this writ
petition - Held that (i) Whenever the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the
finding of the enquiry officer, the Authority has to put the employee on notice
by stating the reasons on the basis of which he intends to disagree with the
finding. The ultimate decision which
vests with the Disciplinary Authority, should precede the requirements of law;
(ii) Where Disciplinary Authority is not satisfied with the finding, before
taking a decision whether to accept or to differ with the finding, he may call
for further evidence or information from enquiry officer to come to a definite
conclusion. But the initial Report
remains and further information does not result in submission of a new report
by enquiry officer; (iii) In the facts of the case, if it was only calling for
further information from enquiry officer, his report dated 14-9-1995 was not
superseded either expressly or by implication and hence his report dated
30-8-1996 is superfluous and the order of dismissal based on it,is not in
accordance with law and is liable to be set aside.
M. Kanakaiah v.District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar & Anr. 2002 II CLR 290 (A.P.H.C.)
Electricity Supply Act, 1948 -
Sec. 79-C - The Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' (Classification,
Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987, Reg. 9(vii) & II -
Dismissal without holding domestic enquiry against delinquent employee-cashier,
before imposing penalty of - its validity in question - when serious charge of
misappropriation of cash, has been admitted by the delinquent and supported by records
- No necessity to hold domestic enquiry into the same - Order of punishment of
dismissal, held valid and proper - no interference called for merely because
delinquent made good misappropriated amount to Corporation.
N. Gopal v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Bangalore and Anr. 2002 II CLR 530 (Karn.H.C.)
Employees (Classification,
Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1962
Regulation 7 - Schedule II - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.226 -
Major penalty to be imposed, by competent authority against superintending
engineer in Rajasthan State Electricity Board - Held that imposition of major
penalty on superintending engineer, can be ordered only by the Board of
Directors and not the Secretary of the Board, as per Schedule II of the
Regulations - in the instant case, issuing of the chargesheet was without
jurisdiction and not according to law and Rules - conduct of enquiry officer
was doubtful - without assigning the reasons, impugned order is violative of
Rule 7(viii) - petitioner entitled to all consequential benefits.
R.C. Kaushik v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Vidhyut Marg, Jaipur 2002 II CLR 543 (Raj.H.C.)
Appeal - Respondent - Insured
employee terminated by employer, as unable to do his work due to occupational
disease, resulting into 50% disability - On his Application, ESI Court held it
to be 100% disability - Hence this Appeal - Held worker is permanently disabled
to do his work i.e. total disablement - no substantial question of law.
Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation, Thrissur v. A.V. Veeran Kutty 2002 II CLR 464 (Ker.H.C.)
S.2(9) - Hamalies engaged
only for loading, unloading and storing of goods in godown - Whether they are
covered as `employees' under the Act - Not `employees' of the Company when they
are available for such works to other also - No evidence to show that they are
engaged exclusively by the appellant for their work - No contribution to be
paid for such hamalies.
E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd., Vijayawada v. Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr. 2002 II CLR 349 (A.P.H.C.)
S.45-A, S.77-A, Explanation
(b) proviso, - Determination of Contributions - Initiation of proceedings -
Limitation for - proceedings u/s.45-A are held not subject to any limitation -
also held that determination of contributions and its recovery as arrears of
land revenue from the employer, without intervention of Court, is power
conferred on Corporation - exercise of the said power, is not subject to law of
limitation - Limitation as prescribed in S.77, held, is attracted only if the
Corporation approaches Court for adjudication of it claim.
Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore v. CIGIFL Limited, Bangalore 2002 II CLR 534 (Karn.H.C.)
Sec.77(1-A) - Explanation,
Clause (b) proviso - Limitation - As per law, the Corporation cannot make a
claim for contributions due for period beyond 5 years prior to date of demand -
Nor can it make an indivisible claim for a period which is partly within time
and partly beyond time.
E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd., Vijayawada v. Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr. 2002 II CLR 349 (A.P.H.C.)
Equal pay for equal work -
FCI operating storage depots under direct payment system where handling work
was seasonal. Petitioner union representing such workmen filed this writ
petition claiming equal pay for equal work in respect of such workmen with
regular departmental workers - Respondent has put up a case that quantum of
work done by these workmen (DPS workers) is not identical to the turnover of
work of departmental labour and that there is large variations in the working
pattern and workload - Held: Having regard to the pleadings and factual
controversy involved, it would not be appropriate for the Supreme Court to
record its conclusions on merits and petitioners are left to agitate the issue
before proper forum.
Food Corporation of India Workers Union v. Food Corporation of India & Anr. 2002 II CLR 323 (S.C.)
State Bank of India
(Determination of Terms and Conditions of Services) Order, 1979 - Order
applied to existing officers - Categorisation of officers into generalist
officers such as probationary officers and Trainee officers and Specialised
Officers such as Rural Development Officers (RDO), assistant law officers,
security officers assistant engineers etc. - Generalist officers are given
higher stage in the scale – Later on
RDO's are also given such initial higher pay in the scale - Bank
declined same benefit to specialised officers - Writ petition on their behalf
is allowed by learned Single Judge and writ appeal by the Bank was dismissed
and hence this appeal to Supreme Court wherein question is whether the
specialised officers are entitled to same benefit as generalist officers on the
principle of equal pay for equal work - While allowing the appeals and setting
aside impugned orders, it is held, after having regard to the settled
principles and the parameters of judicial interference, that the decision taken
by the Bank cannot be faulted on the ground of its being either unreasonable,
arbitrary or discriminatory and therefore judicial interference is
inappropriate.
State Bank of India & Anr. v. M.R. Ganesh Babu & Ors. 2002 II CLR 309 (S.C.)
Constitution of India, 1950,
Art. 226 - Petitioner workman terminated from service without notice - had
worked for 242 days - Labour Court held termination to be contrary to law - but
awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement with full or part back wages -
Petitioner - workman challenges the order of Labour Court granting only
compensation - No error in impugned award -
In this writ the workman challenges the award granting compensation of
Rs.75,000/- and denying the relief of reinstatement to him - Held that
ordinarily in case of illegal termination, relief of reinstatement with full
back wages be granted - But as held in Delhi Transport Corporation case, the
Court is free to adopt any of the reliefs, as it considers expedient in the
facts of the case - The decision in Delhi Transport Corporation's case is not
in variance with the decisions of the Apex Court - No error in the impugned
award.
Shri Pal Singh v. National Thermal Power Corporation Limited 2002 II CLR 512 (Del.H.C.)
S.2(j) - This petition
challenges award of reinstatement and back wages Main ground of challenge
is that irrigation department of the State is not an industry - Held: Following
an earlier decision, it is held that irrigation department of State is
`industry' as defined in S.2(j) of the Act and as such petition is dismissed.
State of U.P. v. Industrial Tribunal IV, Agra & Anr. 2002 II CLR 316 (All.H.C.)
Ss. 2(J) and 25-F -
Petitioner, initially a peon, and later on the Accounts Clerk with the respondent
terminated from service on 30-11-1988 - In the dispute, Labour Court held the
impugned termination not justified and in contravention of S.25-F of the I.D.
Act - Hence granted reinstatement with back wages - In the writ petition filed
by the respondent, learned Single Judge held that termination was bad in law,
but taking into consideration the passing of 12 years in between, modified the
Award and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the appellant
in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation
expenses - Hence this Letters Patent Appeal by the workman - The Division
Bench, having examined the facts on record and law settled on the point,
concluded that the learned Single Judge was entirely right in directing payment
of compensation instead of reinstatement with back wages - also held that
though the respondent could be held as an `industry', it was not carrying on
any commercial enter-prises for making profit - Moreover appellant was an ad
hoc employee - No reason to take a different view than the one taken by the
learned Single Judge.
Murari Lal Sharma v. Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan 2002 II CLR 480 (Del.H.C.)
Ss.2 (k), 7(1) and 10 - On
termination of workers by the respondent, Reference was made to the Industrial
Tribunal, at the instance of the petitioner, challenging the impugned
termination - In the said dispute, the Tribunal passed interim order directing
the respondent-Company to take remaining 64 workers, on their tendering the
undertaking, subject to final order which would be passed in the said reference
- Petitioner union challenges the said interim order - In another writ petition
the respondent-Company challenges the impugned interim order mainly on the
ground that the Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the said
reference, and hence without deciding preliminary issue on the point of
jurisdiction, Tribunal cannot pass such as interim order - On examination of
facts and law settled on the point, held that (i) the dispute could have been
referred to the Labour Court alone and not to Industrial Tribunal; (ii) the
learned member committed error in deciding the interim application, without
deciding the preliminary issue of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner -
Company; (iii) the preliminary issue of
jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal goes to the root of the matter and as
is held by the Apex Court, such issue ought to have been decided first; (iv) in the present case by the second order
dt. 7.1.2000, the reference made to Industrial Tribunal is sought to be
validated, which was otherwise not valid; (v) jurisdiction is a root question
and if a particular forum does not have jurisdiction, the same cannot be
conferred even by the consent of the parties; (vi) the Industrial Tribunal
ought to have decided the preliminary issue of jurisdiction first before
deciding other issues, as the issue of jurisdiction is always going to the root
of the matter. Once the preliminary issue of jurisdiction is raised and
attention is focused, there was no reason for the Tribunal to postpone the
decision on preliminary issue of such nature, the decision of which would have
disposed of the entire case.
Gujarat Kamdar Panchayat v. Maize Products & Anr. 2002 II CLR 550 (Guj.H.C.)
S.2 (p) read with S.18 (1)
- Question decided in this appeal is that settlement dated 28.12.1995 between
appellant employer and union of workers which is a recognised union under Code
of Discipline in respect of Dock Workers working in the appellant company is
binding on the respondent workman in the absence of it being shown that the
settlement was ex-facie unfair, unjust or malafide, but respondent workman has
not alleged much less made out any such case.
Hill Sons & Dinshaw Ltd. v. P.G. Pednekar & Ors. 2002 II CLR 457 (Bom.H.C.)
S.11-A - Constitution of
India, 1950, Art.226 - Denial of back wages Petitioner a driver, dismissed
from service being found guilty of misconduct i.e. remaining absent from duty
for four days - Labour Court passed an award granting reinstatement, but denied
back wages - Hence writ petition - Held petitioner entitled to 50% of back
wages.
Babubhai Valdas v. G.S.R.T.C.
2002 II CLR 498 (Guj.H.C.)
S.12 (3) - Constitution of
India, 1950, Art.226 - During the Course of employment Respondent No.2
employee injured - Discharged from service on medical ground - Offered
alternative employment - Did not report to duty then - In the reference Labour
Court held the removal as improper and directed the Management to provide
employment as helper or store-keeper - Order confirmed by Single Judge in writ
petition - In writ appeal, order set aside.
Management of D.A.T.C. Limited, now renamed as Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai - Div II) Limited, Madras v. Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, Madras and Anr. 2002 II CLR 469 (Mad.H.C.)
Ss.12(3) and 18(1) -
Settlement under Government by G.O. constituted committee to streamline
disparities in pay scales - Recommendations of Streamlining Committee,
modified by Govt. - Order modifying some of the recommendations challenged in
this writ - allowed.
Thanjavur District Employees Co-operative Societies Employees Union, Thanjavur represented by its President v. Secretary to Government, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Chennai & Ors. 2002 II CLR 503 (Mad.H.C.)
S.18 - Settlement between
employer and recognised union - Settlement providing for declaration by
every workman that it is binding on him and to pay Rs.48/- as union's
subscription - In complaint of unfair labour practice for not giving benefit of
the settlement in the absence of compliance of aforesaid two conditions,
Industrial Court held in favour of workman Respondents nos.1 to 10 and hence
this petition - While upholding the judgment of Industrial Court, it is held
that condition of signing a declaration was redundant and recognised union
cannot put pre-condition to become its member in order to get benefit of the
settlement.
Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd.
& Anr. v. Narayan Atmaram Sawant
& Ors. 2002 II CLR 335
(Bom.H.C.)
S.18(1), S.25-F, S.25-G and
S.25-N and Industrial Disputes Rules
Question decided in this petition is that employer and recognised union
by a settlement cannot decide the fate of workmen by agreeing to terminate
their services in violation of provisions of law.
Ibrahim Hanif Mulani v. General Manager, Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. & Anr. 2002 II CLR 395 (Bom.H.C.)
S.25-F - Karnataka State Seeds
Corpn. Ltd. Service Rules, 1980, Rules 6(c) and 7(b) - Constitution of India,
1950, Art. 226 - Termination of service of temporary employee - His
appointment on contract basis for 6 months on fixed salary, renewed
periodically - terminated after 7 1/2 years without showing reasonable cause -
Learned Single Judge declined to grant any relief - Hence this writ appeal -
Division Bench held that impugned termination of appellant to be arbitrary and
in punitive manner without compliance with principles of natural justice.
S.V. Kadanagoudar v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Seeds Corporation, Bangalore and Anr. 2002 II CLR 524 (Karn.H.C.)
S.25-F - S.2(oo)(bb) -
Petitioner worked as daily rated cartman According to him, his service was terminated without notice -
Labour Court granted reinstatement and full back wages - Industrial Court in revision
held that termination was covered by S.2(oo)(bb) and therefore disallowed
entire claim of the petitioner - Hence this writ petition - High Court
dismissed the writ petition after holding that petitioner has failed to prove
that he had worked for 240 days and hence termination is not hit by S.25-F of
the Act.
Uda Bhura Chavan v. Dy. Engineer, P.W.D., Chalisgoan 2002 II CLR 437 (Bom.H.C.)
Ss.25(O), 25FFA, 25L, 25N -
Appropriate Government - The Management of Mining and Allied Machinery
Corpn. Ltd. filed an application, seeking closure of its works at Durgapur and
regional workshop at Nagpur with effect from 29-10-2001 - It was granted by the
appropriate Govt. i.e. Govt. of India with a direction that the workmen of
these two units should be given one more chance to exercise their option for
Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) within 15 days from the issue of the order -
Writ petitions filed by the petitioners, challenging the impugned order of the
appropriate govt., allowing closure of the units were dismissed by the learned
single Judge - Hence these writ appeals - Held by the Division Bench that (i)
West Bengal amendment has been inserted in the 1st Proviso to S.25-O, which
provides the method, time, mode of payment of compensation in a prescribed manner;
(ii) the guiding consideration for closure is that the reasons for closure
should be adequate, sufficient and it is in good faith, not unfair or unjust
and not prejudicial to the interest of the public at large; In case the reasons
appear to be justified, reasonable and sufficient and is not adverse to the
public interest, then permission can be granted; (iii) In the instant case the
appropriate Govt. i.e. Central Govt. has granted benefit more than what could
have been received by the incumbents under the State amendment - In the order
itself there is a direction that the workmen be given one more chance to
exercise their option for VRS within a period of 15 days from the date of issue
of the order; (iv) Reasons shown for closure are reasonable and genuine with
which the appropriate government was satisfied; (v) In spite of restructuring
in the past and waiver of interest burden and plan and non-plan assistance from
the Govt. of India, the operations could not become profitable and remained
uneconomical; (vi) Today in this millennium when there is a global economy
India cannot lay behind and has to survive in the World Market and it cannot
carry on with the sinking companies. Therefore the whole matter should be
approached in a pragmatic manner; (vii) S.25-O lays down whenever any employer
wants to close down an undertaking of an industrial establishment to which this
chapter applies, shall apply in a prescribed manner for prior permission at
least 90 days before the date of intended closure, before the appropriate
government, whereas the period prescribed u/s. 25FFA is 60 days for application
before appropriate government. Therefore S.25FFA has no application in the
present case - No merit in both the appeals.
MAMC Sramajibi Union & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 2002 II CLR 364 (Cal.H.C.)
S.33(2)(b) - Constitution of
India, 1950 - Art.226 - An approval application Delinquent respondent no.2
chargesheeted and being found guilty of misconduct of insulting and abusing
Checking Inspector, dismissed from service - Bonus dispute pending - Hence
Management filed approval petition - rejected by the Tribunal - Hence this writ
petition by Management - Petition dismissed as there was violation of
principles of natural justice as proper opportunity was not given to delinquent
to defend himself in enquiry.
Management of Cheran Transport Corporation Ltd., Coimbatore, represented by its Managing Director v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Madras & Anr. 2002 II CLR 466 (Mad.H.C.)
S.33-C(2) - Claim for overtime
allowance - Respondent no.3 filed an application under S.33-C(2) claiming
overtime allowance amounting to Rs.4446.90 for the period from 20.2.1984 to
31.12.1984 - Petitioner Corporation filed objection on the ground that
respondent no.3 had been paid project allowance at Rs.50/- per month in lieu of
overtime allowance and overtime allowance is not payable to junior foreman -
Labour Court allowed the claim and hence this petition - It is held that
respondent no.3 had no pre-existing right and Labour Court had no jurisdiction
under S.33-C(2) to adjudicate the
entitlement of respondent no.3 to overtime allowance.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. State of U.P. & Ors. 2002 II CLR 318 (All.H.C.)
Ss. 33-C(2) and S.25-M -
Application to Labour Court for recovery of lay-off compensation - Labour Court
dismissed application on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to determine
compensation - In this petition against said dismissal, it is held that there
are more than 100 workmen in the establishment, that as such lay-off was deemed
to be illegal under S.25-M(8) and that compensation payable under that Section
has to be awarded to the petitioner as it is an existing right.
Vimal S. Roy (Captain) v. N.E.P.C. Airlines, Chennai & Ors. 2002 II CLR 377 (Bom.H.C.)
Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957- Rule 2(f) - Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 226 - Appropriate
Government - Reference made by Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Award passed by
Labour Court - Challenge by petitioner- Corporation - Delay and laches and also
in view of clear Rule 2(f) - No merit in the petition - Herein the petitioner
Corporation challenges the Award passed by Labour Court on the ground that
Govt. of NCT of Delhi is not the `appropriate Government' to make the said reference
- Held that (i) petition suffers from culpable delay and laches and (ii) Rule
2(f) makes a specific provision as to which is the authority to make reference
in case of union territory. Rules framed in accordance with law and there is no
challenge to the Rules.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Mahavir & Anr. 2002 II CLR 478 (Del.H.C.)
Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 - S.5 - This petition is against interim orders passed in complaint of unfair labour practice filed by respondent no.1 - Order is based on order of Joint Commissioner of Labour - Dispute is as to right to work for respondent no.1 between two tolis of Mathadi Workers - Held: In view of S.5 of the Act, the State Government has to take decision in the matter and petitioner to forward the copy of this judgment to State Government for early decision. Shree Cloth Market Maratha Kamgar Sangharsh Samiti v. Baba Transport Company & Ors. 2002 II CLR 360 (Bom.H.C.)
Maharashtra Recognition of
Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Ss.5, 7 and
32 and Items 1, 9 of Schedule IV Jurisdiction - Complaint of unfair labour
practice of illegal lock-out and not allowing workers to resume duty -
Industrial Court held that grievance of the petitioner-complainant is about
illegal termination which did not fall under the Item 9 but under Item I of
Schedule IV and Industrial Court has no jurisdiction - In this petition against
said order, it is held, relying on the decision in the case of A.P. Sawant v.
Bajaj Auto Ltd., 2001 II CLR 982, that it is within the jurisdiction of
Industrial Court to adjudicate the entire issue in respect of the alleged
illegal termination of 23 workers in this case and that therefore it cannot be
said that Industrial Court had no jurisdiction and hence matter is remanded.
Association of Engineering Workers, Mumbai v. A.T.V. Ltd. Mumbai & Anr. 2002 II CLR 2002 II CLR 387 (Bom.H.C.)
S.30(2) - Power of Review of
final order - Petitioner Association filed complaint of unfair labour
practice of resorting to illegal lock-out etc. - Complaint was allowed -
Respondent filed review application - Industrial Court allowed review
application and dismissed the complaint - Hence this petition contending that
review was not maintainable against final order - Held: Industrial Court was
right in holding that the review application was maintainable when it came
across certain facts which in its view were necessary for judicial adjudication
and absence of consideration thereof would amount to miscarriage of justice.
Association of Engineering Workers, Mumbai v. A.T.V. Ltd. Mumbai & Anr. 2002 II CLR 2002 II CLR 387 (Bom.H.C.)
S.59 - Respondent filed complaint
of unfair labour practice for non-payment of salary and lay-off compensation -
On objection by respondent as regards applicability of the Act, he withdrew the
said complaint and filed application under S.33-C(2) for recovery of said
amounts - Labour Court rejected his claim and hence this petition wherein S. 59
of the Act is pleaded as a bar - Held: Bar of S. 59 is not applicable for the
simple reason that the said Act is admittedly not applicable to respondent
Company.
Vimal S. Roy (Captain) v. N.E.P.C.
Airlines, Chennai & Ors. 2002 II CLR 377 (Bom.H.C.)
Item 1 of Schedule IV -
Appellant is given punishment of dismissal for sleeping on the work premises -
Question is whether it attracts Item I of Schedule IV - Held if the punishment of
dismissal is found to be grossly disproportionate or is such that no reasonable
employer would impose, such punishment could be treated as legal victimisation
itself and therefore Clause (a) of Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act is
attracted.
Uttam Manohar Nakate v. Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. Pune & Ors. 2002 II CLR 380 (Bom.H.C.)
Item 1 of Sch. IV -
Termination of service of respondent in contravention of S.25-F of Industrial
Disputes Act - Labour Court held the same to unfair labour practice and
directed reinstatement without back wages - In revision Industrial Court
confirmed order of reinstatement with full back wages - Hence this petition -
High Court confirmed the order of reinstatement on account of violation of
S.25-F of I.D. Act, but the order of full back wages is modified to 50% back
wages as it was found that both the parties were at fault.
Superintending Engineer, Public Works Division, Kolhapur & Anr. v. Gajanan Shrinivas Kshirasagar & Ors. 2002 II CLR 332 (Bom.H.C.)
Item 6 of Schedule II and Items
9 and 10 of Schedule IV - Respondent company by notice dated 1.6.1984
suspended operation and declared lock-out from 18.6.1984 - Petitioner union
filed complaint of unfair labour practice for declaring illegal lock- out -
Industrial Court dismissed the complaint and in this petition, High Court
upheld the order of Industrial Court after observing that lock-out from
18.6.1984 was legal and directed respondent company to pay wages for the period
from 1.6.1984 to 17.6.1984 with 24% interest.
Blue Star Workers Union v. Blue Star Ltd. and Anr. 2002 II CLR 445 (Bom.H.C.)
Item 6 of Sch. IV -
Petitioner was appointed on 8-12-1970 by Respondent No. 1 on temporary basis as
Projectionist-cum- Mechanic but he is kept temporary and as such he filed
complaint of unfair labour practice - Respondent No. 1 denied employer-
employee relationship with petitioner and alleged that Respondent No. 1 is
merely implementing P.P.Programme of respondent No. 2 Central Government
through Respondent No. 3 State Government and entire staff of the project is
under control of Central Government - Industrial Court accepted the case of
respondent No. 1 and held there was no unfair labour practice as alleged -
Hence this petition - High Court considered the entire evidence and upheld findings
of Industrial Court and observed that whole liability of such staff employed
under P.P.Programme by the implementing agency like the respondent Hospital is
that of Central Government. High Court further directed Central Government to
review the entire position of staff under P.P.Programme and take appropriate
decision.
Ramakant Laxman Sarmalkar v. Nowrojee Wadia Maternity Hospital & Ors. 2002 II CLR 413 (Bom.H.C.)
Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation Standing Order Order 32(a) - Reversion - Appellant was in service of respondent
Corporation as Senior Foreman - He was temporarily promoted in 1994 against
direct sector vacancy of Depot Manager `A' junior (M) - He was reverted in 1998
to his original post - His writ petition having been dismissed, he filed this
appeal wherein his contention is that as per Standing Order 32(a), he was
entitled to continue till there is direct recruitment - Rejecting the
submission it is held that under S.O. 32 he was entitled to be considered for
substantive promotion in the absence of direct recruit, that he was considered
for regular promotion but he was not found fit and as such reversion cannot be
said to be in breach of S.O. 32(a).
Sayyed Fakhrul Islam v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. 2002 II CLR 408 (S.C.)
Misconduct - Sleeping on work
premises during duty hours - Model
Standing Order 24(1) - Act subversive of discipline or good behaviour -
Appellant was charged under Standing Order 24(1) for sleeping on work premises
during duty hours - Whether Standing Order 24(1) is attracted - Held: The very
fact that the employee is fast sleeping during duty hours would lead others to
believe that the discipline at the work place has been thrown overboard and
that word `any' preceding the expression "act subversive of
discipline" in Model Standing Order 24(1) in contradistinction to `an'
shows that intention is to cover wide and large number of acts which may
include sleeping during duty hours subversive of discipline.
Uttam Manohar Nakate v. Bharat
Forge Co. Ltd. Pune & Ors. 2002 II CLR
380 (Bom.H.C.)
Pay-Scale - Entitlement to
higher scale - Petitioner worked as Senior Clerk from 1-3-1984 to
31-12-1985 and thereafter as Hospital Superintendent - He is not given pay
scale for said post as recommended by Bhole Commission or Fourth Pay Commission
and he claims the same - Held laxity of Government in according sanction to
said pay-scale cannot deprive the petitioner his rightful dues particularly
when Dy. Director, Municipal Administration has issued direction to ensure that
employees are paid higher scales - Petition is allowed.
Ashok
Rangnath Boketode v. Chief Officer, Barsi Municipal Council, Barsi & Ors. 2002 II CLR 393 (Bom.H.C.)
Pay-scales and Benefits - Parity - Entitlement - Claim for pay parity and benefits for Ministerial Staff of Government Secretariat Press and Government Stationery Stores and publication press with the employees of the offices attached to the secretariat - High Court allowed the writ petition - Hence this appeal by State of Bihar - While remanding the matter for fresh consideration in the light of observations made in the judgment, it is observed that High Court has not considered certain aspects such as recommendations of expert body like Pay Commission, the pay structure adopted by Government pursuant to such recommendation, the question regarding equivalence of posts, the nature of duties and responsibilities. State of Bihar & Ors. v. Secretariat Press Ministerial Staff Union & Ors. 2002 II CLR 410 (S.C.)
Posts of Special Assistants -
Manner of filling the posts - As per earlier practice on the basis of
seniority alone - As per understanding dt. 29.5.1986 and Settlement dt.
6.2.1987 with majority union on the basis of seniority and interview - Petitioner
Bank filled vacancies on that basis on 1.2.1987 - Respondent no.1 minority
union raised dispute that vacancies of 31.12.1984 and 31.12. 1985 should have
been filled on basis of seniority only - Industrial Tribunal passed award in
favour of respondent no.1 union and hence this petition - It is held that
vacancies were not declared on 31.12.1984 and 31.12. 1985 and as such there was
no question of filling vacancies on basis of seniority alone, that petitioner
Bank identified vacancies in October 1986 and filled the same as per
understanding and Settlement and there is nothing illegal or improper in the
said action.
Bank of India v. Bank of India Workers Organisation & Anr. 2002 II CLR 355 (Bom.H.C.)
Punishment - Misconduct of
sleeping during duty hours - Dismissal from service for said misconduct -
Whether shockingly disproportionate - Held that punishment of dismissal was
shockingly and grossly disproportionate and that considering the fact that
appellant is out of job for over 15 years and hardly 5-6 years of service is
left, High Court granted compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- in lieu of
reinstatement.
Uttam Manohar Nakate v. Bharat
Forge Co. Ltd. Pune & Ors. 2002 II CLR
380 (Bom.H.C.)
Termination of Service - Respondents
were appointed by Dr. Rakesh, Assistant Commissioner after his service was
terminated - Services of respondents are terminated - Respondents succeeded in
Administrative Tribunal and High Court and hence this appeal - Supreme Court
held that appointments of respondents by Dr. Rakesh, after his service was
terminated, are illegal and nullity and there was no question of giving notice
to respondents before terminating their services.
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. v. Ajay Kumar Das & Ors. 2002 II CLR 406 (S.C.)
Service of the respondent, a
driver, was terminated on 7.9.1986 on the basis of medical report that he was
medically unfit because of defective vision in right eye as a result of
cataract - On reference, Labour Court held termination to be illegal and
directed his reinstatement with back wages - In this petition against the said
award, High Court considered the evidence and agreed with the findings and
conclusions of the Labour Court and observed that cataract in the human eye can
be removed and the eye sight can normally or ordinarily be cured.
Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Pune v. Pralhad Ramchandra Kamble 2002 II CLR 440 (Bom.H.C.)
Trade Union - Election of Office bearers of Railway Mens'
Union Civil Suit by respondent no.1
herein for a declaration that he is duly elected office bearer - He obtained
temporary injunction to restrain appellant herein from interfering with his
functioning - High Court declined to interfere and hence this appeal wherein
submission is that both the parties are now not the members of union in view of
successive elections - Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed main suit
to be disposed of within 3 months after observing that dispute has lost its
relevance due to passage of time and successive elections to elect office
bearers and such office bearers having been recognised by management. Supreme
Court further held that declaring subsequent elections as invalid would be
contrary to democratic functioning.
J.M. Biswas v. N.K. Bhattacharjee & Ors. 2002 II CLR 326 (S.C.)
Verification of Membership and
Recognition of Trade Unions Rules, 1994 - Rule 24 - Right of unrecognised
Unions - Appellant Bank issued Staff Circular dt. 13.11.1997 to the effect that
Bank would not enter into dialogue with any non-recognised union/Association -
Upon challenge to the said Circular by respondent association, High Court
struck down operative portion of the circular and directed appellant to permit
respondent association to meet and discuss grievances of any individual members
of Association relating to service conditions etc. - This order is to an extent
modified in review - Bank has preferred this appeal against said judgments -
Supreme Court while dismissing appeals held that there is no serious illegality
or infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the High Court and observed
that impugned Circular is not only contrary to the express provision in rule 24
but also runs counter to the scheme of the Trade Unions Act and the rules.
Chairman, State Bank of India
& Anr.v. All Orissa State Bank
Officers Association & Ors. 2002 II CLR 517 (S.C.)