CURRENT LABOUR REPORTS

     SUMMARY OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS

Plea of the management before the Labour Court that the claimants are not `workmen' under the Act - Not considered by Labour Court - Order passed in favour of applicants - Single Judge set aside the award and remanded the matter to the Labour Court to record finding as to whether the appellants are `workmen' - Division Bench in the Writ Appeal, held that Labour Court erred in not deciding the issue of jurisdiction - Matter need not be remanded to the Labour Court, since the appellants are not `workmen' u/s.2(s) of the I.D. Act.

"Naganath & Ors. v. Common Cadre Committee, Bidar & Ors." 2001-I CLR 964 (Karn.H.C.)

Respondent company compulsorily retiring the petitioner from services prematurely on 24.3.1993 - By an order dated 8.2.1995 the High Court setting aside the said order of compulsory retirement on the ground that the power to retire the petitioner compulsorily was not there with the respondent company in its rules and regulations at the time when the said order was passed - Such power conferred on the respondent company on 1.9.1993 - The respondent company passing another order dated 23.2.1995 retiring the petitioner prematurely with retrospective effect from 2.9.1993 - Hence this writ petition - Held: Once there was no power to retire the petitioner compulsorily on 24.3.1993 and the order passed on 24.3.1993 was ultra vires, without jurisdiction and a nullity, a fresh exercise should have been undertaken to deal with the case of the petitioner and any order which could have been passed should have been made effective from the date when it was passed and could not have been passed with retrospective effect - The order dated 23.2.1995 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and warrants to be quashed.

"J.S. Chawla v. Haryana Minerals Ltd." 2001-I CLR 878 (Del.H.C.)

Art. 12- Respondent no. 2 District Co-operative Bank - Whether it is instrumentality of the State - Held : Since State Government exercises all pervasive control over the Bank, conclusion is irresistible that the Bank undoubtedly is instrumentality of State.

Ram Sahan Rai v. Sachiv Samanaya Prabandhak & Anr. 2001-I CLR 1028 (S.C.)

Art. 14 - Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1975, Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1987 - Pay Scales - Petitioner joined service as Assistant Lecturer in certificate course of Mechanical Engineering, in the pay scale of Rs. 550-900 on 24.2.1983 - Having passed degree examination in Mechanical Engineering on 2- 3-1985, he applied that he be granted the scale of Rs. 650-1040, as others were granted that scale - Order dated 1-4-1986 granting such a scale to the petitioner, was passed, but by an order dated 29-4-1986 the earlier order was cancelled as wrongly passed and that the petitioner was appointed against a post, which was meant for certificate course only - His representation against the cancellation of the order dated 1-4-1986, was not decided - In this writ, petitioner is seeking (i) quashing of the said order dated 29-4-1986, as it was passed without following the principles of natural justice and was hit by Art.14 of the Constitution and for grant of pay scale of Rs. 650- 1040 - Held that the impugned order is legal and valid and is not hit by Art.14 of the Constitution and is not against the principles of natural justice.

"Dilip M. Patel v. State of Gujarat" 2001-I CLR 1050 (Guj.H.C.)

Arts.16, 309, 14 - I.I.M. Bangalore Service Rules 1977, Rule 1.5 - Fundamental Rules - R.56(2) - Voluntary retirement - On his own request, the petitioner permitted to retire on expiry of leave granted to him - Introduction of special voluntary retirement scheme, subsequently - Petitioner opted to retire under special VRS before the permitted date of his retirement - In this writ appeal the Court held that it amounts to withdrawal of earlier option of retirement - Authority did not pass reasoned order, rejecting his withdrawal of earlier retirement offer and hence the order retiring the petitioner as per his earlier option, illegal.

"S. Srikant v. Chairman, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore & Anr." 2001-I CLR 896 (Karn.H.C.)

Arts.16, 226 - Fundamental Rules - R.56(2) - Acceptance by the authority of the notice of voluntary retirement of employee and fixing particular date for his retirement - Court held that taking these steps, is not a ground to refuse permission to the employee to withdraw the notice of voluntary retirement before the date fixed for his retirement.

"S. Srikant v. Chairman, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore & Anr."   2001-I CLR 896 (Karn.H.C.)

Art. 226 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - S. 10(1)(c) - Services of respondents-workmen terminated in 1997 - Dispute relating to termination referred to Labour Court for adjudication - Labour Court making award holding that services of respondents- workmen have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably and that they are therefore entitled for reinstatement with 50% back wages - After 13 years, petitioner-employer filing present writ petition (in 1999) contending that reference itself was improper and illegal (stating that respondents-workmen were piece-rated workmen on contract basis and hence question of termination of their services did not arise; or alternatively, that respondents- workmen had left their employment of their own volition) - Held: If legality of reference is to be challenged, it must be immediately so done by invocation of powers vested in High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India - Here, after inordinate delay of 13 years, Management is attempting to rake up legality of reference itself - This cannot be permitted in law or equity.

"Bhagwan Hosiery v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Ors."     2001-I CLR 971 (Del.H.C.)

Art.226 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - S.25-F - Petitioner daily wage worker - helper under the respondent-agency - Challenges termination of his service as illegal retrenchment - Held respondent-agency is an instrumentality of the State, amenable to the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution.

"G. Agamaiah v. Dir., N.R.S.A., Hyderabad & Ors."      2001-I CLR 919 (H.C.A.P.)

Arts. 226, 227 - Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 - Maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of the denial of opportunity - Held that time and again the petitioner was asked to furnish the details which he failed to provide - Thus the petition is untenable - Moreover no documents furnished with the writ petition.

"Jayant Vitamins Ltd., Ratlam v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation & Anr." 2001-I CLR 961 (M.P.H.C.)

Arts. 226, 227- Industrial Court granted interim relief in complaint of unfair labour practice - This petition challenges the said order granting interim relief - Scope - It is held to be settled rule of practice of the High Court not to interfere with the exercise of discretionary power under Arts. 226 and 227 merely because two views are possible on the facts of the case and where it is open to the Tribunal to reach a particular conclusion, then it is not a matter which can be corrected by the High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction.

"Voltas Limited (Motor Plant) v. Voltas Motor Plant Employees Union"    2001-I CLR 884 (Bom.H.C.)

Art. 235 - Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1979 - Rule 8(8) and 8(20)- Disciplinary Proceeding against Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate - Charge of pressurising a Labour Judge to decide labour dispute in favour of employer - Committee of Judges decided to initiate disciplinary action against petitioner and appointed Enquiry Officer- Enquiry Officer carried out enquiry and submitted his report - Disciplinary Committee, after notice to petitioner held that charges were proved and punishment of dismissal be imposed - Later on Government of Maharashtra issued order dt. 28-10-1985 dismissing the petitioner from service- This writ petition challenges the said order.

"Chandrakant Venkatesh Moholkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors."   2001-I CLR 1087 (Bom.H.C.)

Art.321 - Exercise of any additional functions by the Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service Commission can be provided for by an Act made by Parliament or the Legislature of a State and not by any departmental direction - In other words, responsibility for making recruitments to posts under any local authority or other body corporate constituted by law or of any public institution can be conferred on the Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service Commission only through an Act of Parliament or the Legislature of a State and not by any departmental direction.

"Sindhu v. State of Kerala" 2001-I CLR 890 (Ker.H.C.)

Misconduct of going on and instigating illegal strike - Question is whether declaration of strike being illegal is necessary before initiating disciplinary enquiry - Held: It is not at all necessary for the employer to get first declaration of a strike as illegal and then to initiate a disciplinary action against the striking workmen.

"Bharatiya Arogya Nidhi Sheth Kantilal C. Parikh General Hospital v. Bombay Labour Union & Anr." 

2001-I CLR 941 (Bom.H.C.)

Theft - Respondents in each of these two petitions are workmen in employment of Petitioner - They along with four others were involved in theft of photo film rolls from Shed No. 17 - Police complaints were filed wherein they were acquitted- However in disciplinary enquiries, both the respondents are held guilty and dismissed from service - On reference Central Government Industrial Tribunal held the finding of Enquiry Officer to be perverse and directed reinstatement with full back wages of the respondents - Hence this petitions - While setting aside the award of the Tribunal, it is held that the petitioners have proved their case of misconduct against both the delinquent workmen in the domestic enquiry and enquiry officer has rightly held them guilty of the misconduct and petitioners have rightly imposed punishment of dismissal on them.

"Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai v. Ramesh Rajaram Jadhav"   2001-I CLR 823 (Bom.H.C.)

Enquiry against judicial officer – natural justice - Validity- Petitioner who was Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is dismissed from service for misconduct after disciplinary enquiry- He has challenged validity of disciplinary enquiry on grounds that Enquiry Officer was bias, requisite documents were not supplied to him to enable cross examination of main witness, refusal of permission to engage a lawyer in defence and failure of the Enquiry Officer to question him as regards circumstances appearing against him - High Court rejected all these contentions by holding as follows. (1) There is no basis for the allegation of bias and the said plea is rejected; (2) Enquiry Officer refused to give certain documents on the ground they being confidential, but in any event, they were not relevant for the purpose of enquiry and refusal of Enquiry Officer to supply to the petitioner the file relating to Confidential Records of main witness, Labour Judge was justified; (3) the request for permission to have assistance of lawyer was rightly rejected as according to Enquiry Officer no complicated point was involved and the petitioner himself was a Judicial Officer of long standing; (4) Rule 8(20) of MCS (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979 has not been violated and even if the petitioner was not questioned strictly in the manner provided by Sub-Rule (20) of Rule 8, he has suffered no prejudice and finally (5) Enquiry Officer has believed the evidence of most crucial witness and there is no reason which would justify taking a different view. Petition is dismissed.

"Chandrakant Venkatesh Moholkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors."   2001-I CLR 1087 (Bom.H.C.)

Ss.2(1) and 2(12) - Mines Act, 1952 - S.2(a)(i) - The appellant challenges the application of Notification dt. 21.6.1977 issued by Government of Goa under E.S.I. Act on the ground that the said notification, in so far as it is applicable to mining industry, is beyond the scope of the Act as the appropriate Government is Central Government - Mines are situated at Pisurlen and the office of Mine is at Sanquelin while Head Office is at Panaji in Goa - High Court held the notification by State Government to be applicable - Hence this appeal - Held: In view of the interpretation of the "appropriate Government" in I.D. Act in M/s. Serajuddin's case which is identical with expression "appropriate Government" as defined in E.S.I. Act, the High Court is correct and calls for no interference.

"Damodar Mangalji & Co. Etc. v. Regional Director"    2001-I CLR 957 (S.C.)

S. 2(12) and S. 2(17) "Factory" - "Principal employer" - Liability to comply with the provisions of the Act - Petitioner served with a show cause notice to comply with the provisions of the Act - Further information sought by the ESI authorities on 15.4.1987 about the compliance by giving information of the amount not taken into consideration - No compliance by the employer on this point - No compliance to the reminder that followed - Recovery proceedings initiated by ESI authorities - In this writ petition, the employer contends that the demands are barred by limitation - Held that the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable.

"Jayant Vitamins Ltd., Ratlam v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation & Anr."   2001-I CLR 961 (M.P.H.C.)

Sec. 45-A - Determination of contributions - Held Limitation Act not applicable.

"Jayant Vitamins Ltd., Ratlam v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation & Anr."     2001-I CLR 961 (M.P.H.C.)

S.2(22) - Wages - Attendance bonus paid under the Scheme announced by the employer, which was neither statutory nor under settlement – In Appeal the Court held that such an amount is not paid or is not payable as part of the contract of employment neither it comes within the first part of `wages' as contemplated u/s.2(22) of the Act - Moreover the said amount was payable after three months - Thus the question of same being covered under the later part of the definition of `wages', does not arise.

"Regional Director, E.S.I.C., Ahmedabad v. Accumax Ltd."    2001-I CLR 902 (Guj.H.C.)

S.45-A(1), Proviso - Notice for personal hearing issued by Regional Director, to petitioner, to determine contribution payable by it - Petitioner submitted representation with detailed statement - As Petitioner's Counsel could not attend postponed hearing, sought next date for hearing - But orders passed fixing contribution - petitioner not heard - held such an order cannot be sustained.

"Hafeez Motor Transport, Pudukottai represented by its Partner, Smt. Kursheed Shaifudeen v. Deputy Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Madras"   2001-I CLR 1036 (Mad.H.C.)

S.75 - Scope - Order passed without hearing the party concerned - Principles of natural justice not observed - Availability of alternative remedy u/s. 75 of the Act - Held that impugned order cannot be sustained on the ground of violation of statutory provisions and also the principles of natural justice.

"Hafeez Motor Transport, Pudukottai represented by its Partner, Smt. Kursheed Shaifudeen v. Deputy Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Madras"    2001-I CLR 1036 (Mad.H.C.)

Petitioners, Work Charged employees, seeking parity in employment with employees holding regular posts and drawing regular pay scale - Held: Petitioners have not made out a case that they had been performing the duties or discharging the functions similar to the duties being performed and functions being discharged by holders of regular posts drawing a regular pay-scale - There is total absence and lack of allegations or material suggesting that the functions and responsibilities, nature of work and duties being discharged by the petitioners have in any manner been at par with those of the Distribution and Transmission Wing possessing similar qualifications.

"Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors."     2001-I CLR 885 (Del.H.C.)

To enforce the principle of equal pay for equal work as a fundamental right or discriminatory treatment in violation of Arts.14 and 16, it must be demonstrated that the employees are discriminated against in matters relating to pay and other emoluments with other similarly placed employees - While considering this question, it is not necessary to find out similarity by mathematical formula, but there must be a reasonable similarity in the nature of work, performance of duties, qualification and the quantity of work performed by them - It is a well known principle that it is permissible to have classification in service based on hierarchy of course, pay scale, value of work, responsibility and experience

"Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors."      2001-I CLR 885 (Del.H.C.)

Closure-Award - Finding of learned Single Judge is that there was closure of textile section of Nylon Plant of the appellant which necessitated retrenchment - Division Bench differed and held that there was no closure - In this appeal, Supreme Court held that in view of the facts that there was no dispute that there was textile section and there was no serious dispute that the textile section had been closed, the Division Bench erred in coming to a conclusion that there was no textile section and that there was no closure of textile section and the said findings of Division Bench cannot be sustained.

"J.K. Synthetics v. Rajasthan Trade Union Kendra & Ors."      2001-I CLR 1058 (S.C.)

S.(2)(j) – Industry- Gujarat Non-Secretariat Clerks, Clerks-Typist and Typists (Direct Recruitment Procedure) Rules, 1970 - Conservator of Forests wanted 2 clerks to be appointed - No such candidate was available for recruitment as per rules - As such respondent was appointed on purely temporary basis and when his service was terminated, he filed writ petition alleging termination to be illegal under S. 25-F of the Act - Defence is that Forest Department is an Industry - High Court held the department to be industry by following decision in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare & Ors. JT 1995 (9) SC 465, and gave relief to the respondent - Hence this appeal - Held: The decision in the aforesaid case of Jagannath Maruti Kondhare cannot have any application to the facts of the present case where there has not been any assertion of fact by the respondent in establishing that the establishment to which he had been appointed is "an industry" and that as such the respondent is not entitled to any relief under the Act.

"State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar"       2001-I CLR 968 (S.C.)

S.10 - Power of Government to make reference - Held, Government cannot go into the merits of the case or base its conclusion on matters not germane for consideration.

"Tamil Nadu Atomic Power Employees' Union v. The Union of India and Anr."

2001-I CLR 1040 (Mad.H.C.)

S.10(1) - Reference as to justification of the retrenchment of workmen in four divisions of appellant company- Learned Single Judge upheld the award that there was closure which necessitated termination of workmen- In appeal Division Bench held that the question of closure was not referred to the Industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal could not have gone into the said question- In this appeal, Supreme Court has set aside the said part of Division Bench Judgment after observing that in order to come to the conclusion, whether or not retrenchment was justified, the Industrial Tribunal had to first decide whether or not there was a closure and whether the same was bona fide.

"J.K. Synthetics v. Rajasthan Trade Union Kendra & Ors."     2001-I CLR 1058 (S.C.)

Ss.10(1) and 10(3) - Reference of disputes and prohibition of continuation of Lock-out - Respondent no.3 is recognised union for petitioner's establishment - Petitioner's financial position is precarious and cannot satisfy demands of respondent no.3 - As a result workmen were indulging in indiscipline and petitioner declared lock-out - Respondent no. 2 union suddenly came up saying it has the majority - In the meantime, State Government made reference of some disputes to Industrial Tribunal at the behest of respondent no.2- State Government also passed an order prohibiting continuance of lock-out - Hence petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the above two orders - Questions arise are (1) whether reference at the instance of union where there exists another union which is a recognised one is legal and valid, and (2) whether prohibition of continuation of lock-out is valid when reference is not made in respect of dispute as to reduction in staff which led to lock-out - Both the orders of the State Government namely making of reference and prohibition of continuation of lock-out, are held to be legal and valid.

"Empire Industries Limited v. State of Maharashtra Industries, Energy and Labour Department & Ors." 

2001-I CLR 833 (Bom.H.C.)

S.11-A - Disciplinary Proceeding - Petitioner, an employee of respondent No. 1 was given charge sheet alleging that she had picked up quarrel with her co-workman Mrs. Sunanda, abused her in filthy language and resorted to unruly behaviour - After enquiry she was dismissed from service - On reference Labour Court held the misconduct proved and punishment to be proper and hence this petition - Held : Having regard to the fact that Labour Court has independently assessed the entire evidence and came to his own conclusion that the misconduct levelled against the petitioner was established, no interference can be made with the award of the Labour Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

"Usha Suryakant Guram v. Lyka Labs Limited & Anr."     2001-I CLR 873 (Bom.H.C.)

S.11-A - Respondent no. 2 was conductor in BEST Undertaking of the petitioner - He was given a charge sheet alleging misconduct on the basis of a report that on check, shortage of Rs. 56.25 was found in his cash collection --After enquiry he was dismissed from service- Respondent no.1 union espoused his cause - Labour Court held that respondent no. 2 was not guilty of misappropriation but at most was guilty of negligence and as such reduced the punishment to reinstatement without back-wages - Industrial Court confirmed the order of the Labour Court and hence this petition - Held : The graph of post record of respondent no. 2 is itself shocking and when that is taken into consideration, it has to be held that the courts below have not considered the case in proper perspective and that the order of dismissal has to be confirmed.

"Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation v. The General Secretary, BEST Workers' Union" 

2001-I CLR 869 (Bom.H.C.)

S.25-F- Termination of service of Petitioner - Petitioner was in employment of respondent no. 1 from 1989 till on 15-6-1992 on which day his service was terminated without any reason - The case of the respondent is that the petitioner was never in its employment and there was no employee-employer relationship between them - Respondent has further alleged that petitioner was in the employment of M/s. Kamlesh Ironing as Ironer - On the basis of evidence, Labour Court rejected the reference and the said award is subject matter of this petition - Held : There is absolutely no application of mind by the Labour Court to the evidence on record and the award of Labour Court is perverse and is quashed. Direction is given to respondent to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages.

"Kunwar Prasad v. Creative Garments & Anr."        2001-I CLR 845 (Bom.H.C.)

S.2(s) - `Workman' - Secretaries of Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies, appointed to discharge managerial, executive and administrative functions - Held by the Division Bench that such employees are not `workmen' as contemplated in the definition - They are not entitled to maintain application u/s. 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act.

"Naganath & Ors. v. Common Cadre Committee, Bidar & Ors."      2001-I CLR 964 (Karn.H.C.)

Ss.2(s), 2(rr)- Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - S.10 Government of India made reference under Ss. 7A & 10(1)(d) of the Act the demand of deposit collectors of banks for pay scales and other service conditions available to regular employees - Industrial Tribunal held them to be workmen of concerned banks and further gave directions as to their absorption in regular service - In writ petition against the said award High Court upheld the award that deposit collectors are workmen and are entitled to full back wages, conveyance allowance, gratuity, etc. but set aside the directions to absorb the deposit collectors as regular staff - Hence this appeal - While dismissing appeal it is held that the deposit collectors are workmen under S.2(s) and commission received by them is wages and the work which the deposit collectors do is completely different from the work which the regular employees do and there was thus no question of absorption and there was also no question of deposit collectors being paid the same pay scales, allowances and other service conditions of the regular employees of the Banks.

"Indian Banks Association v. Workmen of Syndicate Bank & Ors."     2001-I CLR 986 (S.C.)

S.2(n) and S.22 - Strike in public utility service like Hospital - Hospital is declared by State Government as public utility service - Petitioner is a Hospital - It is held that strike in petitioner- Hospital in contravention of S.22 would be per se illegal.

"Bharatiya Arogya Nidhi Sheth Kantilal C. Parikh General Hospital v. Bombay Labour Union & Anr." 

2001-I CLR 941 (Bom.H.C.)

Secs. 9-A and 12(5)- Scope of S. 9-A- Compliance of the provision of S.9-A- Held that with the compliance of S.9-A, the scope for adjudication is not lost.

"Tamil Nadu Atomic Power Employees' Union v. The Union of India and Anr." 2001-I CLR 1040 (Mad.H.C.)

S.10(1)- Reference of Industrial Dispute -Petitioners claim to be `Badli' Workers since last several years when they raised dispute, reference was made to Industrial Tribunal to the effect if the demand of Badli workers for regularisation was justified and if so to what relief they are entitled to - Tribunal held 92 workmen were entitled to regularisation and all benefits and status of regular employees - Learned Single Judge confirmed the same, but Division Bench set aside the same on the ground Tribunal had committed an error of jurisdiction by enlarging scope of the reference. Hence this special leave petition - Supreme Court on consideration of facts and circumstances held that there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of Division Bench.

"Gouri Sankar Chatterjee & Ors. v. Texmaco Ltd. & Ors."      2001-I CLR 978 (S.C.)

S.10(1) and S.19 - State Government made reference of disputes raised by respondent no. 1 ministerial staff during subsistence of settlements dated 3.9.79 - Disputes raised are regarding change of weekly holidays and parity in emolument with workers category - Question before Supreme Court is whether reference during subsistence of settlement is valid and whether staff employees can claim parity - Held: In view of change in the circumstances since the time settlement was entered into, the Government may make reference and as regards parity what has to be seen ultimately is whether the emolument paid to ministerial staff employees become unfair in view of increase in the emoluments given to workers.

"National Textile Corpn. (APKKM) Ltd. v. Sree Yellamma Cotton, Woollen & Silk Mills Staff Association" 2001-I CLR 1006 (S.C.)

S.10(1)(c) - Regularisation of Daily Rated Workers -State Government made reference to Industrial Tribunal as to whether employees listed in schedule be made permanent and as to their entitlement of benefits. The employees are daily rated labourers such as plumbers, carpenters etc. and are working for long - Tribunal directed regularisation of those who have completed 10 years of service (with minimum of 240 days)as on 1.1.1993 - In writ petition, said award is set aside with a direction to pay these employees at the minimum of pay scale and to frame a scheme for regularisation. Writ appeals were dismissed and hence these appeals - Before hearing, appellant produced a scheme approved by the State Government which is approved by the Supreme Court subject to modifications.

"Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar & Ors."      2001-I CLR 995 (S.C.)

S.10(3) - On account of disputes over charter of demands workmen of petitioner were indulging in illegal activities and when situation deteriorated, petitioner suspended its operations from 30-12 -1983 and gave notice of lock-out to be effective from 16-1-1984 - On 16-2-1985, State Government made reference as to legality and justifiability of lock-out and also passed an order under S. 10(3) prohibiting continuation of lock-out - Tribunal held the lock-out to be legal, but fastened liability to pay wages for 10 days from 16-2- 1985 (the date of S. 10(3) order) on the ground that petitioner was not justified in taking prompt action to lift lock-out - It is this latter part of the order which is challenged in this writ petition on several grounds including the one that the petitioner had to deliberate with respondent union in the matter of lifting of lock-out - Held: It is only on 22-2-1985, respondent union for the first time gave undertaking or assurance for proper and peaceful working of factory, that immediately thereafter petitioner deliberated with the Union and lifted lock-out by letter dated 28-2-1985, that as such it cannot be said that the said period was spent by the petitioner unjustifiably and that therefore the petitioner cannot be made liable to pay wages for the said period of 10 days.

"Metal Rolling Works P. Ltd. v. General Labour Union & Anr."    2001-I CLR 925 (Bom.H.C.)

S.11-A - Scope of the powers of Industrial Tribunal - Punishment - In departmental enquiry, respondent Bus Conductor found guilty of misconduct i.e. misappropriation of public funds by committing default in issuing tickets - Disciplinary Authority ordered stoppage of increment for 7 years with permanent effect - The Tribunal reduced the penalty to 3 years stoppage of increment, without permanent effect - In this writ petition, the High Court held that the employee is found to be consistent and constant defaulter with no improvement in his conduct and hence the punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority though severe, was not extreme penalty and Tribunal ought not to have interfered with - High Court thus set aside the Award of the Tribunal reducing the penalty imposed on the workman and held it to be fit case to exercise its powers under Art.227 of the Constitution.

"Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. R.S. Prajapati"       2001-I CLR 909 (Guj.H.C.)

S.25-F- Award of reinstatement with restricted back wages to the extent of 60%- High Court in writ petition ordered grant of full back wages and Division Bench confirmed the same - While allowing the appeals, Supreme Court observed that the High Court erred in interfering with Labour Court's award of granting restricted wages in the absence of a finding about the perversity or the erroneous approach of the Labour Court in the grant of restricted back wages.

"P.G.I. of M.E. and Research, Chandigarh v. Raj Kumar etc."      2001-I CLR 1055 (S.C.)

S.25-F - `Workman' - Petitioner being on daily wages - Whether can be in `continuous service' - Held that his claim cannot be regularised in the background that contract labour daily wage employees are not appointed against any regular vacant posts.

"G. Agamaiah v. Dir., N.R.S.A., Hyderabad & Ors."         2001-I CLR 919 (H.C.A.P.)

Ss.25-F & 25-N - Factories Act, 1948 - S.46 - Canteen workers - Absorption - Appellant, a Government of India Undertaking is running a statutory canteen where contract labour is employed - In previous proceeding it is held that the contract labourers are in fact employees of the appellant - High Court gave direction to absorb them subject to conditions (a) to (e). This was confirmed by Supreme Court - Thereafter again a writ petition was filed wherein High Court interpreted conditions (a) and (e) -Condition (a)<MI> <D>regarding maximum age is interpreted to mean as age of superannuation - Condition (e) as to retrenchment is interpreted to mean retrenchment after following the procedure laid down in Chapter V-B of the I.D. Act - Hence this appeal - While setting aside the order of the High Court, it is held that condition (a) as to maximum age at the time of initial appointment is too clear to admit of any controversy and condition (e) only meant that an employee who is not absorbed is to be paid retrenchment compensation under S.25-N and his case for re-employment should be considered under S.25-H of the Act.

"Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. v. Shramik Sena & Anr."      2001-I CLR 981 (S.C.)

Ss.25-H, 25-G - Re- employment of retrenched workman - In a challenge to the termination of service, the Labour Court held that appellant workman had not completed 240 days of working in a calendar year and hence compliance of S.25-F of I.D. Act was not required - Single Judge confirmed the said finding and dismissed the writ petition - In this writ appeal the Division Bench confirmed the said finding and held that mere mentioning names of junior persons allegedly to have been appointed after retrenchment of the appellant-workman, does not serve the purpose - Appellant not entitled to the benefit of re-employment - No interference called for.

"Ram Gopal Saini v. The Judge, Labour Court No.2, Jaipur & Ors."   2001-I CLR 907 (Raj.H.C.)

S.25-N- Standing Orders 20A and 11-A for operatives and staff of Textile Mills - Petitioner is a unit of Maharashtra Textile Corporation - Respondent No.3 is a representative and approved union for textile industry for the local area of Mumbai - There are two agreements dt. 16-6-1997 and 10-8-1998 between petitioner and respondent no. 3 union - First agreement related to reduction in sanctioned complement of spinning department - Second agreement related to reduction in sanctioned complement of the posts by 174 - Petitioner moved State Government accordingly for permission to retrench under S. 25-N, 49 surplus employees who have already attained 60 years of age as per Standing Orders 20 A and 11 A- State Government and in reference Industrial Court refused permission mainly on the ground that the petitioner failed to clarify if it wanted to recruit fresh hands in the place of retrenched employees. Hence this petition - While setting aside both the impugned orders, it is held that in the facts of the case, application for permission under S. 25-N was not necessary and the petitioner is permitted to retire 49 employees in question under Standing Orders 20-A and 11-A.

"Western India Spinning and Manufacturing Mills v. T.N. Mantri, Member of Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai and Ors."          2001-I CLR 1064 (Bom.H.C.)

Sch. 2, Item 6, S.33-C - Transfer of a driver - Whether mala fide in view of the allegations of victimization of employee for alleged union activities - No proper evidence on this issue - But the Labour Court and the Single Judge in the writ, for various reasons held it to be a mala fide transfer - Division Bench held that merely because employee had put in 21 years of service or was given night duty, would not make it a mala fide transfer - Question of seniority is irrelevant in matters of transfer - No mala fides established - Transfer cannot be held illegal and no relief of compensation u/s.33-C(2) of I.D. Act can be granted.

"Management of Erinkadu Estate, Karumbalam v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore & Anr." 

2001-I CLR 914 (Mad.H.C.)

Rule 6 - Discharge of probationer- Appellants in both appeals were appointed as Munsifs on probation- At about the end of their probation, Administrative Committee of High Court, on review of confidential records and remarks based on assessment of their work, recorded opinion that their performance was too poor to be considered satisfactory for their confirmation- They were therefore discharged from service - They filed writ petitions which were dismissed and so were the writ appeals. Hence these appeals wherein submissions are that orders of discharge cast stigma and as such discharge without opportunity of hearing was illegal - Held: The impugned orders do not cast any stigma on the appellants and the orders are in strict compliance of Rule 6(2) and are valid.

"H.F. Sangati v. R.G. High Court of Karnataka & Ors."     2001-I CLR 1033 (S.C.)

Rule 3(4) - Validity of the Rule - Kerala Judicial Service was formed by integrating the members of the Civil Judicial Service and Criminal Judicial Service - Ratio is fixed in integrated cadre for determining inter se seniority - The appellant Association assailed the validity of the aforesaid integration, more particularly the validity of Rule 3(4) of the Rules - Full Bench of Kerala High Court rejected the challenge and hence this appeal - Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeal, held that there is no legal infirmity with the conclusions arrived at by the High Court requiring any interference.

"Kerala Magistrates (Judicial) Assn. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors"    2001-I CLR 951 (S.C.)

Petitioner's first wife was employed - She died - Thereafter petitioner got re-married - Now he is seeking family pension in respect of his deceased former wife - Held: Petitioner's case is covered by Rule 90(7)(a) of Kerala Service Rules, Part III - According to the said rule, in the case of remarriage of a widower, the widower cannot get family pension in respect of his deceased former wife.

"Balakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala"        2001-I CLR 974 (Ker.H.C.)

Declared with effect from 8.10.1997 - Workmen have given offer to give an undertaking and that lock-out be lifted - Appellant states it is before BIFR and there is a proposal for rehabilitation of the company - It is held that in view of ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of "Tata Davy Ltd. v. State of Orissa" 1997 II LLJ 989, no direction can be given to lift the lock-out and allow the workers to start working and that only direction can be given to BIFR to expedite the proposal so that rehabilitation takes place early.

"Modistone Ltd. v. Modistone Employees' Union & Ors."     2001-I CLR 1009 (Bom.H.C.)

S.55(2) - Termination of service - Respondent no.1 is employee of appellant Bank - He was issued show cause notice to explain financial irregularities and embezzlement of monies by not depositing amounts of loan recovered - Respondent no. 1 made good to the Bank the amounts but did not show cause - His service was therefore terminated. Respondent no. 1 filed suit under S. 55(2) and claimed reinstatement with back wages - Assistant Registrar directed reinstatement without back wages - On further appeal, Board of Revenue held that respondent no.1 was also entitled to back wages - Writ Petition against the said order is dismissed and hence this appeal - Held : In view of facts that respondent no. 1 was found to have embezzled certain monies which were returned by him after show cause notice, Assistant Registrar correctly did not award back wages and as such order of Board of Revenue directing back wages cannot be sustained.

"Zilla Sahakari Kendriya Bank Mariyadit v. Jagdishchandra & Ors."      2001-I CLR 1031 (S.C.)

Schedule B read with Rule 6 of Part II - Petitioner- teachers hold degrees of B.Com and B.Ed. - They are appointed as Assistant Teachers but their appointments are not approved by Education Officers in view of impugned circular dated 5.12.1998 issued by Director of Education - Direction therein is not to grant approval to the appointments of Assistant Teachers who possess B.Com, B.Ed. degrees unless there is availability of work-load in the respective subjects which they have studied upto graduation level or in economics - It is this circular which is challenged in these petitions on the ground that B.Com, B.Ed. being one of the qualifications for the Assistant Teacher in Secondary Schools, the impugned circular cannot override the same - Held: Education Officer or Deputy Director of Education has the powers to deny approval for the appointment of said Teachers, if there is no workload or inadequate workload in the subjects which they have studied at B.Com level and as such the challenge to impugned circular is devoid of merits and the petitions are dismissed.

"Harlal Harchand Pardeshi v. State of Maharashtra & Ors."        2001-I CLR 936 (Bom.H.C.)

S.24(2)(a) - Legality of lock-out - Petitioner suspended its activities on 2-2-1994 - On that very day it gave notice of lock-out effective from 21-2-1994 - Lock-out was lifted on 23-3- 1994 - In a complaint of unfair labour practice, Tribunal held the lock-out to be illegal from its inception till it was lifted on 23-3-1994 - Hence this writ petition - Held: Lock-out which was illegal at the commencement on 2-2-1994 was legal in respect of the period subsequent to the expiry of 14 days notice period, and as such the petitioner is liable to pay full wages to the workers for the period from 2-2- 1994 till the expiry of the period of 14 days.

"Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. v. G.S. Baj & Ors."        2001-I CLR 932 (Bom.H.C.)

Item 1 of Sch IV- Petitioner terminated the service of the respondent supervisor-cum-electrician by order dated 7.5.1998 and offered him one month's wages but not the retrenchment compensation - Stand of the petitioner is that it is not an industry and that termination was on account of abolition of the post - Respondent filed complaint of unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Sch IV on the ground that termination was in undue haste and in breach of S.25- F of I.D. Act - Labour Court dismissed the complaint, but Industrial Court in revision held in favour of the respondent and directed his reinstatement with 25% back wages - Hence this petition - While quashing the order of the Industrial Court, it is held that by reappreciating the evidence, Industrial Court exceeded its jurisdiction and interfered with Labour Court's order.

"Tulsiani Chambers Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Shri Shrikant V. Gawas"    2001-I CLR 1073 (Bom.H.C.)

Item 6 of Sch. II and Item 9 of Schedule IV- On 2.9.1997, appellant gave lock-out notice under S.24(2) of the Act to take effect from 8.10.1997 for reasons stated in the annexure - Respondent Union therefore filed complaint of unfair labour practice under Items 6 of Schedule II and Item 9 of Sch. IV of the Act - Industrial Tribunal held that lock-out declared by the Appellant cannot be said to be illegal and the workmen will not be entitled to wages for the lock-out period - In writ petition, Learned Single Judge held that lock- out notice was a sham or pretence but as appellant is before B.I.F.R, it should pay wages from 2.3.1998 on which day the petition was admitted - In this writ appeal, Division Bench has not agreed with the learned Single Judge and observed that learned Single Judge had committed an error in appreciating the evidence that notice of lock-out cannot be faulted and that as no requirements as laid down under S.25 were followed by the Industrial Court Item 6 of Sch. II of the Act is not attracted.

"Modistone Ltd. v. Modistone Employees' Union & Ors."      2001-I CLR 1009 (Bom.H.C.)

Item 9 of Sch. IV - Justifiability of lock-out - The question is whether lock-out was justifiable or not can be gone into by the Industrial Court under Item 9 of Sch. IV of the Act - It is held that Industrial Court cannot go into the question whether the lock-out is justified and the said question can only be agitated before appropriate Court under the provisions of I.D. Act.

"Modistone Ltd. v. Modistone Employees' Union & Ors."      2001-I CLR 1009 (Bom.H.C.)

Item 9 of Schedule IV - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - S.2(4) - Commercial Establishment - Petitioner is a Cooperative Society- owning industrial units or galas - Members or shareholders of petitioner society are carrying on commercial or trading activities in the said units - Petitioner society has nothing to do with the same - For running the society, petitioner has employed four watchmen and two clerks - Respondent no. 1 is espousing their cause- They filed complaint of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Sch. IV of the Act alleging that they are paid wages which are less than prescribed under Minimum Wages Act - Industrial Court having granted their claim - this petition is filed alleging that petitioner is neither an industry nor a commercial establishment - High Court accepted the case of the Petitioner that it is neither an industry nor a commercial establishment to attract the provisions of Minimum Wages Act and quashed the impugned order of the Industrial Court.

"Kiran Industrial Premises Co-op Society Ltd. v. Janata Kamgar Union & Ors."      2001-I CLR 1046 (Bom.H.C.)

Items 9 & 10 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - S.9-A and Chapter VB - By notice dt. 15-2- 2000, petitioner company displayed Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) with certain conditions - Respondent union is a recognised union for the petitioner's establishment - Petitioner filed complaint of unfair labour practice challenging the above VRS and complaining infraction of S. 9-A and S. 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - It is alleged in the complaint that VRS is a deliberate plan to unemploy workman and close down the plant in contravention of S.25-N- Petition was filed in the complaint for interim relief and the Industrial Court granted the same and stayed the implementation of VRS- Hence this petition - Held : The impugned order, which is an interim order, is based on proper consideration of the various questions raised in the complaint at the interim stage and needs no interference.

"Voltas Limited (Motor Plant) v. Voltas Motor Plant Employees Union"    2001-I CLR 884 (Bom.H.C.)

S.61(2)(d) - Respondents P.H. Singh and T.L. Tiwari were working as Professors in College run by Petitioner no. 1- These Professors were in charge of N.S.S. Scheme - They committed misappropriation and certain irregularities and after disciplinary enquiry they were dismissed from service - They filed appeals before University Tribunal - Tribunal held that irregularities were proved but reduced the punishment in case of Prof. Singh to reinstatement without back wages and so far as other Professor Tiwari is concerned he died pending appeal and there was no question of reinstating him- Petitioner, Prof Singh and legal representatives of Prof Tiwari filed these petition in respect of part of the order of the Tribunal which went against them - Held : Both the professors committed irregularities in their conduct but for such technical irregularities, they cannot be inflicted with extreme punishment of dismissal and that as such no interference with the order of Tribunal is necessary.

"Chairman, Laxmi Education Society & Anr. v. P.H. Singh & Ors."      2001-I CLR 880 (Bom.H.C.)

Some of the employees of the opposite party Corporation giving an undertaking to the effect that deduction can be made from their gratuity in respect of charges of residential accommodation allotted to them - Held: Such undertaking does not amount to waiver of the employee's right because such right has been created by the statute for reasons of public policy.

"Ram Ranjan Mukherjee & Ors. v. Mining and Allied Machinery Corpn. Ltd."  2001-I CLR 893 (Cal.H.C.)

S.4(6) - Employer withholding the payment of gratuity of employees on the plea that they have not vacated the residential accommodation allotted to them - Held: Except under S.4(6) of the Act, no deduction can be made from the amount of gratuity payable to an employee under the provisions of the Act.

"Ram Ranjan Mukherjee & Ors. v. Mining and Allied Machinery Corpn. Ltd."   2001-I CLR 893 (Cal.H.C.)

S.7(7) - Appeal by employer against order of Controlling Authority- Limitation for filing appeal- Deposit of gratuity awarded by the Controlling Authority is mandatory - Held strict compliance of law is necessary.

"Special Officer, The Kanniyakumari District Co-operative Printing Works Limited, Thuckalay, Kanniyakumari District v. The Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act (The Dy. Commissioner for Labour), Thirunelveli and Ors."         2001-I CLR 867 (Mad.H.C.)

Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. Employees Service Rules and Regulations - Regulation 7 - Memorandum and Articles of Association of Respondent Company - Article 77(5) - Respondent Corporation is a Government of Maharashtra Undertaking - Petitioner is an association of the officers of the respondent Corporation-Respondent 2 who is in charge of the management of Respondent Corporation took decision in May 1999 to promote its officers and upgrade 87 posts of Junior Management cadre to middle management cadre and effected the decision - Said officers joined their promotional/upgraded posts and worked to complete satisfaction of their superiors - However by order dated 19-5-2000, the orders of Promotion/ Upgradation in favour of 102 officers came to be cancelled on the ground that respondent no. 2 had taken decision of promotion/upgradation without obtaining prior approval of the Board of Directors and the State Government - This order of cancellation is impugned in this writ petition.

"Maharashtra Krishi Udyog Vikas Mahamandal Adhikari Sanghatana v. Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors."      2001-I CLR 876 (Bom.H.C.)

Contravention of provisions of Industrial Court - While disposing of appeal, Division Bench directed State Government and Labour Commissioner to prosecute the Company and its office bearers for contravention of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and Rules- It is held in this appeal by the Supreme Court that such directions were entirely unjustified and are unsustainable.

"J.K. Synthetics v. Rajasthan Trade Union Kendra & Ors."        2001-I CLR 1058 (S.C.)

Going on and instigating illegal strike in Hospital - Illegal strike in a Hospital or Public utility service is to be treated entirely differently from a strike in a factory - It is therefore held that charges proved against 13 workmen would be enough to impose on them the extreme penalty of dismissal.

"Bharatiya Arogya Nidhi Sheth Kantilal C. Parikh General Hospital v. Bombay Labour Union & Anr." 

2001-I CLR 941 (Bom.H.C.)

Rule 16 - Petitioner dismissed as found guilty of the alleged misconduct in a departmental enquiry - In the writ petition the single Judge held the dismissal not bad in law, but directed that petitioner be given pensionary benefit as he had rendered his services till 3-8-1985 when the termination order was passed - In this writ appeal, the Division Bench held that punishment awarded was excessive and disproportionate to the charges levelled and proved - Amount involved was meagre - It was first instance in his whole career - It was first instance in his whole career - No such serious punishment warranted - Hence modified the punishment to that of compulsory retirement on proportionate pension.

"Sarvada Nand Sharma (Dr.) v. State of Rajasthan"        2001-I CLR 1085 (Raj.H.C.)

Rule 28 - Seniority Applying Rule 28 seniority list was prepared and Diploma Holders who had subsequently obtained degrees were placed above respondent in seniority list- Respondent challenged the seniority list as also vires of Rule 28-Learned Single Judge made petition absolutely holding that controversy was covered by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of "Vijay Singh Dora v. State of Rajasthan" 1996 (12) S.C. 320 - Hence this appeal - Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the proceeding after observing that the question raised in this proceeding were not covered by the aforesaid decision.

"State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Anil Kumar "       2001-I CLR 980 (S.C.)

Petitioner employed as a personal driver of the Chairman and Managing Director of respondent Bank - His services terminated - Petitioner seeking orders for reinducting and regularising him as a driver of respondent Bank - Held: There was no cadre of a driver in respondent Bank - The Bank permitted reimbursement to officers whenever they had engaged personal driver on a scale set down by the Bank - No evidence to support the claim of petitioner- Petition dismissed.

"Sree Bhagwan v. National Housing Bank & Ors."         2001-I CLR 973 (Del.H.C.)

Penalty of - Penalty of reduction to a lower post can be to the next post below - It cannot be to a post lower than the one to which the delinquent was directly recruited.

"Sreekantan Nair v. Hindustan Latex Ltd."          2001-I CLR 892 (Ker.H.C.)

Appellant (Plaintiff) an employee of respondent no. 2 (Defendant no. 2) Bank was removed from service for unauthorised long absence - He filed civil suit which came to be dismissed - First Appellate Court decreed the suit as the removal was for misconduct without holding disciplinary enquiry - Second appellate Court upheld the said finding but dismissed the suit on the ground that suit was for enforcement of contract of service and was not maintainable in Civil Court - Hence this appeal - While setting aside judgment of second Appellate Court and affirming judgment of first Appellate Court, it is held that second respondent Bank, being an instrumentality of State, Third exception to the general principle that contract of service cannot ordinarily be specifically enforced would apply.

"Ram Sahan Rai v. Sachiv Samanaya Prabandhak & Anr."         2001-I CLR 1028 (S.C.)

Its withdrawal - The resignation of an employee dated 5-2- 1994 accepted by the employer on 8-2-1994 - On 9-12-1994 employee withdrew his resignation - But late on 11-2- 1994 employee was informed about the acceptance of his resignation dated 5-2-1994 - Industrial dispute at the instance of the employee, referred to adjudication - Labour Court upheld the contention of the management and passed an award, rejecting the claim of the employee - The single Judge in the writ petition, set aside the award of the Labour Court, and ordered reinstatement - In this writ appeal, the Division Bench upheld the view of the single Judge.

"Management of Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. M.B. Ramakrishna"

2001-I CLR 959 (Karn.H.C.)

Rule 161(1) - Respondent, an Executive Engineer, was placed under suspension on 22-5-1986 pending disciplinary proceeding - Enquiry was continuing but in the meantime, the Government of Gujarat by an order compulsorily retired the respondent by invoking Rule 161(1) with effect from 13-2-1987- Respondent challenged the order and High Court held the order to be punitive and set aside the same - The Supreme Court set down certain facts and held that the impugned order when viewed in the light of these facts, it could be said that the order of compulsory retirement was passed for extraneous reasons and High Court was right in setting aside the order of compulsory retirement.

"State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel"       2001-I CLR 1066 (S.C.)

Rule 61.1(a)(b) and 61.2(a)(b)- Appointment as Head Mistress and Pay-Scale- Respondent No.2 Society runs three secondary schools including Urdu Boys High School- Petitioners and respondent no. 3 were working as Assistant Teachers- Petitioner who is senior to respondent no. 3 was eligible for appointment as Head Mistress on 1-10-1976- By letter dt. 5-3- 1976, respondent no. 3 was appointed as Head Master of Urdu Boys High School superseding the claim of the petitioner - She made representation in that regard- Later on by order dt. 26-6-1980, Petitioner and respondent no. 3 both were appointed Headmaster/ Headmistress in two of the three schools run by the respondent no. 2- The order in favour of respondent was given effect from 6-3-1976- Petitioner's representation is that regard was turned down by order dt.29-10-85 and hence this petition. While quashing the impugned order dated 29-10-85 it is held that the Management without legitimate reasons deprived the petitioner from being appointed as Head Mistress though she became eligible on 1-10-1976 and though she is senior to respondent no.3. It is further held that the petitioner is entitled to get pay scale of Head Mistress from 1-10-1976 and all consequent benefits.

"Ku. Nasreen Jamal d/o. Moinuddin Jamal v. Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati & Others" 

2001-I CLR 828 (Bom.H.C.)

Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 - Regulation 17- And guidelines - Petitioner is employee in respondent Bank - He was promoted from time to time and on 30-11- 1992 he was promoted to Scale V - In May 1995 he was interviewed by DPC for promotion to Scale VI and he was orally informed that recommendation of DPC is kept in sealed cover - Petitioner submits that at that time, he was neither under suspension, nor disciplinary inquiry was initiated against him nor any criminal prosecution was pending against him- Charge sheet was served on him on 15-1-1998 and enquiry is not completed - He filed this writ petition for a direction to open sealed cover and to act according to recommendation - Case of respondent is that the petitioner had committed irregularities in giving loans and CBI inquiry was pending against him.

"Sharbat Chand Jain v. Bank of India and Ors."         2001-I CLR 838 (Bom.H.C.)

Feeder category consists of Direct Recruit Preventive Officers and Promotee Preventive Officers - List challenged by appellants who are Direct Recruit Preventive Officers - High Court upheld the list and hence the appeals - Held: The list is drawn up according to Government Orders then in force and principles enunciated by Supreme Court in some judgments and as such no interference with High Court Judgment upholding the Seniority List.

"G. Babu & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors."           2001-I CLR 993 (S.C.)

Service of the petitioner terminated by the Respondent No.1 - Bank, for having produced a false community certificate while securing the employment - Termination Order emanated from Chennai, consequent upon enquiry held by the Collector of Chennai - Petitioner continued in service due to interim orders passed by the Court at Hyderabad - His writ was dismissed by Single Judge - In this writ appeal, the Division Bench confirmed the Order of the Single Judge and dismissed appeal with observation that he can avail any other remedy, available in law.

"V. Selvaraj v. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai & Anr."        2001-I CLR 922 (H.C.A.P.)

Secs. 2(12) and 2(6) - `Person employed' - Definition of - who is the Appellate Authority - Selecting a particular forum by the parties to the contract - While the statute prescribes different forum - Held that statutory provision of law prevails and has the overriding effect on other contractual liabilities.

"N. Madhavan v. Dy. Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947), Coimbatore and Anr."        2001-I CLR 864 (Mad.H.C.)

Unauthorised Absence - Petitioner was conductor in respondent undertaking - He unauthorisedly remained absent from 1-1-84 to 30-3-1984 and again from 1-12-1984 to 8-3-1985- He was given show cause notice to explain why he should not be treated as having lost his lien - Enquiry was held wherein he did not participate - His service came to be terminated with effect from 19-8-85- He raised an industrial dispute which was referred to Labour Court for adjudication - Before Labour Court he put forward plea that he was ill from 1-12-1984 to 21-11-1987- Parties were allowed to lead evidence before Labour Court- Respondent led evidence but petitioner led no evidence- Labour Court passed an award rejecting reference - Hence this petition - High Court held that there is no infirmity in the award after observing that there is sufficient ground to draw an inference that the petitioner was not ill and was not hospitalised at all during relevant period and the Corporation was fully justified in terminating his service.

"Nazir Abdul Karim Shaikh v. Pimpari Chinchwad Municipal Transport Corporation"     2001-I CLR 862 (Bom.H.C.)

Termination of Service or Abandonment of Service - Respondent no.1 was in service of petitioner from 1.3.1986 - On and from 10.11.1989 he remained absent unauthorisedly - On 16.11.1989, he approached Government Labour Officer alleging that his service was wrongfully terminated - Petitioner put up the case that respondent no.1 remained absent of his own accord and even offered that he should rejoin his duty - Petitioner repeated this stand even in conciliation - In reference also the petitioner repeated the said stand - Labour Court held that petitioner wrongfully terminated the service and passed award in favour of respondent no.1 - Hence this petition - Held: In view of facts on record, conclusion is inescapable that respondent no.1 himself had abandoned the employment and started this vexatious litigation in an attempt to get some monetary benefits.

"Competition Printing Press v. Shriut Jaiprakash Singh & Anr."        2001-I CLR 948 (Bom.H.C.)

Petitioner having joined the service as Assistant Commissioner, Sardar Sarovar Nigam, was frequently transferred to different posts - he joined as Welfare Commissioner, Gujarat Labour Welfare Board on 25.5.2000 - By an order dt.30.10.2000 he was transferred as Project Administrator Tribal Development Department Rajpipla - Petitioner in this writ petition challenges the said transfer order as mala fide, illegal and against the settled policy and guidelines issued by the respondent State Government - Respondent claims that looking to the arrogant behaviour and quarrelsome nature of the petitioner as against his higher and subordinate officers, the impugned transfer order is just, legal and proper - held that in such cases, the Court is not an appellate authority and has very limited role in extreme cases of mala fide, personal interest of some body, prejudice or colourable exercise of power - Court further held that in the present case, the transfer is not a mala fide action and it does not amount to colourable exercise of power - it is transfer made in the interest of administration as well as public interest - Paras 12, 18. Petition dismissed.

"Natvarlal Motilal Chavda v. State of Gujarat"       2001-I CLR 1076 (Guj.H.C.)

U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 -

Regulation 103 - Inconsistency between Regulations and Labour laws - High Court interpreted Regulation 103 to mean that if there is any inconsistency between Regulations and Labour Laws, the Regulations shall be operative - Supreme Court held that interpretation of the High Court was on misreading of Regulation 103 and further observed that on plain reading of Regulation 103, it is clear that in case of any inconsistency, between Regulations and Labour Laws, to that extent Regulations shall be inoperative and not the provisions of the other statutes mentioned in Regulation 103.

"Vikramaditya Pandey v. Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow & Anr."   2001-I CLR 975 (S.C.)

S. 2(S) and S.2(N) - U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 - Regulations 5 and 103 - Appellant was in service of respondent no. 2 Co-operative Bank from 4-12-1981 to 19-7-1985 with breaks - His service was orally terminated on 19- 7-1985 - When challenged, Tribunal held termination to be retrenchment and hence illegal - Tribunal however did not grant reinstatement on the ground that reinstatement could not be ordered on a regular employment in view of the provisions contained in the Regulations - High Court confirmed Tribunal's order on the ground that when there is inconsistency Regulations prevail over Labour laws - Hence this appeal - Supreme Court directed reinstatement and 50% back wages after observing that the Tribunal as well as High Court were not right and justified on facts and in law in refusing the relief of reinstatement of the appellant in service with back wages.

"Vikramaditya Pandey v. Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow & Anr."      2001-I CLR 975 (S.C.)

S.3 - Scope of the term - Accident in the course of employment - Amar Singh Driver of the respondent company, while going in the Gypsy driven by another driver Rajinder Singh, met with fatal accident - No evidence that deceased was not sent for the work of the respondent Company - Commissioner held that deceased did not die `during the course of employment' - High Court held that the said finding of the Commissioner is not justified in view of the evidence on record - finding not proper - finding set aside - Matter remanded for computing the compensation.

"Bhagat Singh v. Sadhu Singh & Ors."        2001-I CLR 905 (P.&H.H.C.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR SUBSCRIPTION/ENQUIRIES/COPIES PLEASE CONTACT:

CURRENT LABOUR REPORTS,

TARDEO AIRCONDITIONED MARKET, GROUND FLOOR,

TARDEO ROAD, MUMBAI 400 034.

TEL:    4949602  / 4941686