Dear All,
Below given Judgments are reported in the issue of May 2014 of Labour Law Reporter, one of the most popular and informative journals on Labour Law and Human Resources Management in India.
* Termination of employee for loss of confidence would be justified.P&H HC 477
* Back-wages are not automatic even when termination is held illegal.Raj. HC 511
* Labour Court will have limited power to reduce punishment when enquiry is fair and proper.P&H HC 477
* Abandonment of job presumed when employee did not respond to reminders for resuming duties.Del. HC 461
* Allegations, when levied, must be substantiated.Supreme Court 449
* Reinstatement would not be justified when the workman did not respond to repeated letters calling upon to report for duty.Del. HC 453
* No relief can be granted to a temporary workman and his termination is excluded by section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act.Del. HC 457
* Transfer of an employee cannot be stayed merely because of medical problem.Jhar. HC 538
* Principal employer not liable for ESI contributions in the absence of control and supervision over the employees of contractor.Mad. HC 536
* Pension will be calculated on Rs.6,500 per month in the absence of any joint request for higher contribution towards pension.Pat. HC 520
* Non production of postal receipt would not justify receipt of the document.Del. HC 461
* Abandonment of job by an employee not proved when employer fails to reply demand letter by workman and the notice by ALC.P&H HC 484
* Tiffin allowance not to attract EPF contribution when it varies on attendance.Bom. HC 470
* Principal employer not liable to pay ESI contribution for the employees of contractor working outside the premises.Mad. HC 531
* Tea allowance paid to employees on duty would not attract ESI contributions.Mad. HC 531
* Workers alleging contract labour system as sham can approach labour authorities to refer the dispute for adjudication.Cal. HC 492
* Compensation, in lieu of reinstatement, is appropriate to a terminated daily wager.Raj. HC 511
* Begging forgiveness by a delinquent employee in the enquiry would be construed as charges proved.P&H HC 477
* Compliance of 25F of ID Act is imperative even for a daily wager who has completed 240 days’ service.P&H HC 480
* ESI Corporation liable to pay compensation to employee whose name is registered even when premium is not paid.Del. HC 465
* Unless the services of workman are expressly terminated, employee-employer relationship would persist.Del. HC 461
* Reinstatement with back-wages is justified when a workman is kept out of employment on the basis of a defective enquiry.P&H HC 487
* Bonus can be claimed under ID Act if employee is eligible under the Payment of Bonus Act.HP HC 474
* Reinstatement is justified on failure to comply with mandatory provisions for termination.P&H HC 484
* Onus to prove for 240 days’ working is upon the workman.P&H HC 482
* A dismissed workman can approach Labour Court within 3 years after 45 days of raising the dispute before conciliation officer.Cal. HC 498
* Sections 33 and 33A of the ID Act aim to protect workman against victimisation.Cal. HC 503
* Payment of Gratuity Act does not apply to working journalists. All.HC 507
* High Court not to interfere in reference for adjudication pertaining to transfer.P&H HC 490
* An employee, unauthorisedly holding possession of official accommodation for 10 years, not entitled to any relief.All. HC 509
* Each day of delay for raising a dispute needs explanation.HP HC 473
* An employer not obliged to provide canteen facility while employing less than 250 workers in the factory.Bom. HC 470
* Reinstatement appropriate when termination of workman is violative of section 25F of the ID Act.Del. HC 458
* Dismissal for unauthorized absence liable to be set aside when workman was vomiting blood and admitted in the hospital.Karn. HC 546
* Statutory limit for contribution for pension cannot be stretched out by Courts.Pat. HC 520
* Labour Court would interfere in punishment only when it shocks to conscious and is disproportionate to misconduct.P&H HC 524
* Reinstatement with back-wags appropriate on termination without enquiry.Del. HC 518
* Punishing one out of two employees jointly accountable would not be justified.MP HC 528
* Punishment not justified when enquiry is prolonged for 19 years.MP HC 528
* Opportunity for hearing be given by Labour Court when the enquiry is held to be defective.Karn. HC 541
* Termination, one month notice pay and filing of application for approval not necessarily to be simultaneous.Karn. HC 543
* Reinstatement is rightly denied on closure of a unit.Del. HC 547
* Alleging denial of cross-examination of witnesses as the evidence not recorded in presence of workman is untenable.Supreme Court 449
* ‘No work, no wages’ will not be applicable when workman is wrongly kept away from work.P&H HC 487
* To prove 240 days’ working, workman can call for record from the employer.P&H HC 482
* Reference of a dispute for adjudication will be presumed on an application under section 33A(b) of the ID Act.Cal. HC 503
* Unless reference is made to particular documents on production of it would not vitiate enquiry.Supreme Court 449
* Contractual employees will not be covered by Rules and Regulations of Haryana Government.P&H HC 477
* 240 days’ working will stand proved when workman was paid through cheque.P&H HC 480
* High Court, in writ jurisdiction, interferes only when Award of the Labour Court is prima facie erroneous.P&H HC 487
* Even casuals/daily wagers, having worked for 30 days’ are entitled to get bonus.HP HC 474
* Last drawn wages during pendency of dispute is payable to a workman entitled to reinstatement under section 33A of the ID Act.Cal. HC 503
* Taking full fare but issuing ticket for less amount would justify conductor’s dismissal.Supreme Court 449
* Enquiry will be fair and proper when workman is furnished with required documents to cross-examine the witnesses.P&H HC 477
* Industrial Tribunal not Labour Court to decide matters pertaining to bonus.HP HC 474
* Allegation of victimization, when levied, must be proved.Del. HC 547
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
2584Below given Judgments are reported in the issue of May 2014 of Labour Law Reporter, one of the most popular and informative journals on Labour Law and Human Resources Management in India.
* Termination of employee for loss of confidence would be justified.P&H HC 477
* Back-wages are not automatic even when termination is held illegal.Raj. HC 511
* Labour Court will have limited power to reduce punishment when enquiry is fair and proper.P&H HC 477
* Abandonment of job presumed when employee did not respond to reminders for resuming duties.Del. HC 461
* Allegations, when levied, must be substantiated.Supreme Court 449
* Reinstatement would not be justified when the workman did not respond to repeated letters calling upon to report for duty.Del. HC 453
* No relief can be granted to a temporary workman and his termination is excluded by section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act.Del. HC 457
* Transfer of an employee cannot be stayed merely because of medical problem.Jhar. HC 538
* Principal employer not liable for ESI contributions in the absence of control and supervision over the employees of contractor.Mad. HC 536
* Pension will be calculated on Rs.6,500 per month in the absence of any joint request for higher contribution towards pension.Pat. HC 520
* Non production of postal receipt would not justify receipt of the document.Del. HC 461
* Abandonment of job by an employee not proved when employer fails to reply demand letter by workman and the notice by ALC.P&H HC 484
* Tiffin allowance not to attract EPF contribution when it varies on attendance.Bom. HC 470
* Principal employer not liable to pay ESI contribution for the employees of contractor working outside the premises.Mad. HC 531
* Tea allowance paid to employees on duty would not attract ESI contributions.Mad. HC 531
* Workers alleging contract labour system as sham can approach labour authorities to refer the dispute for adjudication.Cal. HC 492
* Compensation, in lieu of reinstatement, is appropriate to a terminated daily wager.Raj. HC 511
* Begging forgiveness by a delinquent employee in the enquiry would be construed as charges proved.P&H HC 477
* Compliance of 25F of ID Act is imperative even for a daily wager who has completed 240 days’ service.P&H HC 480
* ESI Corporation liable to pay compensation to employee whose name is registered even when premium is not paid.Del. HC 465
* Unless the services of workman are expressly terminated, employee-employer relationship would persist.Del. HC 461
* Reinstatement with back-wages is justified when a workman is kept out of employment on the basis of a defective enquiry.P&H HC 487
* Bonus can be claimed under ID Act if employee is eligible under the Payment of Bonus Act.HP HC 474
* Reinstatement is justified on failure to comply with mandatory provisions for termination.P&H HC 484
* Onus to prove for 240 days’ working is upon the workman.P&H HC 482
* A dismissed workman can approach Labour Court within 3 years after 45 days of raising the dispute before conciliation officer.Cal. HC 498
* Sections 33 and 33A of the ID Act aim to protect workman against victimisation.Cal. HC 503
* Payment of Gratuity Act does not apply to working journalists. All.HC 507
* High Court not to interfere in reference for adjudication pertaining to transfer.P&H HC 490
* An employee, unauthorisedly holding possession of official accommodation for 10 years, not entitled to any relief.All. HC 509
* Each day of delay for raising a dispute needs explanation.HP HC 473
* An employer not obliged to provide canteen facility while employing less than 250 workers in the factory.Bom. HC 470
* Reinstatement appropriate when termination of workman is violative of section 25F of the ID Act.Del. HC 458
* Dismissal for unauthorized absence liable to be set aside when workman was vomiting blood and admitted in the hospital.Karn. HC 546
* Statutory limit for contribution for pension cannot be stretched out by Courts.Pat. HC 520
* Labour Court would interfere in punishment only when it shocks to conscious and is disproportionate to misconduct.P&H HC 524
* Reinstatement with back-wags appropriate on termination without enquiry.Del. HC 518
* Punishing one out of two employees jointly accountable would not be justified.MP HC 528
* Punishment not justified when enquiry is prolonged for 19 years.MP HC 528
* Opportunity for hearing be given by Labour Court when the enquiry is held to be defective.Karn. HC 541
* Termination, one month notice pay and filing of application for approval not necessarily to be simultaneous.Karn. HC 543
* Reinstatement is rightly denied on closure of a unit.Del. HC 547
* Alleging denial of cross-examination of witnesses as the evidence not recorded in presence of workman is untenable.Supreme Court 449
* ‘No work, no wages’ will not be applicable when workman is wrongly kept away from work.P&H HC 487
* To prove 240 days’ working, workman can call for record from the employer.P&H HC 482
* Reference of a dispute for adjudication will be presumed on an application under section 33A(b) of the ID Act.Cal. HC 503
* Unless reference is made to particular documents on production of it would not vitiate enquiry.Supreme Court 449
* Contractual employees will not be covered by Rules and Regulations of Haryana Government.P&H HC 477
* 240 days’ working will stand proved when workman was paid through cheque.P&H HC 480
* High Court, in writ jurisdiction, interferes only when Award of the Labour Court is prima facie erroneous.P&H HC 487
* Even casuals/daily wagers, having worked for 30 days’ are entitled to get bonus.HP HC 474
* Last drawn wages during pendency of dispute is payable to a workman entitled to reinstatement under section 33A of the ID Act.Cal. HC 503
* Taking full fare but issuing ticket for less amount would justify conductor’s dismissal.Supreme Court 449
* Enquiry will be fair and proper when workman is furnished with required documents to cross-examine the witnesses.P&H HC 477
* Industrial Tribunal not Labour Court to decide matters pertaining to bonus.HP HC 474
* Allegation of victimization, when levied, must be proved.Del. HC 547
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you, Mr. Keshav, for sharing the LLR May 2014.
Today's new learning from this thread: The Payment of Bonus Act is not under the purview of the Labour Court, and it will be dealt with by the Industrial Tribunal.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Today's new learning from this thread: The Payment of Bonus Act is not under the purview of the Labour Court, and it will be dealt with by the Industrial Tribunal.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Boss,
Thank you very much for your participation in this discussion.
I have been posting the judgments as reported in LLR every month since last year or two with the expectation that the members of this forum will read it, apply their minds, and discuss various judgments or seek some details on it so that there will be a sharing of knowledge amongst us. However, these postings have very limited views with no discussion up till now.
The matters listed in the third schedule under the ID Act fall under the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunals, and the following matters are listed in the third schedule:
1. Wages, including the period and mode of payment;
2. Compensatory and other allowances;
3. Hours of work and rest intervals;
4. Leave with wages and holidays;
5. Bonus, profit sharing, PF & Gratuity;
6. Shift working otherwise than in accordance with Standing Orders;
7. Classification by grades;
8. Rules of discipline;
9. Rationalization;
10. Retrenchment and closure; and
11. Any other matter that may be prescribed.
According to the above, the bonus matter is under the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal and not under the Labour Court.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you very much for your participation in this discussion.
I have been posting the judgments as reported in LLR every month since last year or two with the expectation that the members of this forum will read it, apply their minds, and discuss various judgments or seek some details on it so that there will be a sharing of knowledge amongst us. However, these postings have very limited views with no discussion up till now.
The matters listed in the third schedule under the ID Act fall under the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunals, and the following matters are listed in the third schedule:
1. Wages, including the period and mode of payment;
2. Compensatory and other allowances;
3. Hours of work and rest intervals;
4. Leave with wages and holidays;
5. Bonus, profit sharing, PF & Gratuity;
6. Shift working otherwise than in accordance with Standing Orders;
7. Classification by grades;
8. Rules of discipline;
9. Rationalization;
10. Retrenchment and closure; and
11. Any other matter that may be prescribed.
According to the above, the bonus matter is under the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal and not under the Labour Court.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Respected Keshav Korgaonkar Sir,
Thanks for posting a summary of judgments reported in the issue of May 2014 of Labour Law Reporter, which we find quite informative and useful. Nowadays, very few people have time and patience to go through a bulky book consisting of judgments. One can choose the judgment from your summary and can go through the relevant full judgment, if need be.
I always read your mail very thoroughly and with much interest. I appreciate your way or manner of explanation to the queries, which is up to date and understandable.
Regards,
BS Kalsi
Member since August 2011
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks for posting a summary of judgments reported in the issue of May 2014 of Labour Law Reporter, which we find quite informative and useful. Nowadays, very few people have time and patience to go through a bulky book consisting of judgments. One can choose the judgment from your summary and can go through the relevant full judgment, if need be.
I always read your mail very thoroughly and with much interest. I appreciate your way or manner of explanation to the queries, which is up to date and understandable.
Regards,
BS Kalsi
Member since August 2011
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I appreciate the compilation done with brevity. It would have more informative if the reference was quoted in completeness.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Respected Keshavji,
I cordially appreciate your serious efforts towards educating HR professionals. In practice, I find that many of these facts remain unnoticed at both the employee and employer levels. Your genuine contribution is truly a great help to HR professionals in spreading knowledge and raising awareness.
Thanks for sharing.
Bijay
From India, Vadodara
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I cordially appreciate your serious efforts towards educating HR professionals. In practice, I find that many of these facts remain unnoticed at both the employee and employer levels. Your genuine contribution is truly a great help to HR professionals in spreading knowledge and raising awareness.
Thanks for sharing.
Bijay
From India, Vadodara
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Kogaonkar ji,
I appreciate your efforts to apprise the readers about the latest decisions being reported in LLR much before the same reaches the subscribers. I request you to keep it up.
I would also like to request to post the gist of the most important decisions if not otherwise prohibited by LLR from publishing such matters.
Chandok AK
RPFC (Retd.)
www.akchandok.com
From India, Chandigarh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I appreciate your efforts to apprise the readers about the latest decisions being reported in LLR much before the same reaches the subscribers. I request you to keep it up.
I would also like to request to post the gist of the most important decisions if not otherwise prohibited by LLR from publishing such matters.
Chandok AK
RPFC (Retd.)
www.akchandok.com
From India, Chandigarh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Subject: Re: Judgments Reported In LLR May 2014 - under Labour Laws
Dear Korgaonkarji,
Thank you for sharing a summary of judgments reported in the May 2014 issue of the Labour Law Reporter. This is undoubtedly very useful and helpful for all HR professionals. Understanding and applying these judgments in practical situations pose a significant challenge for HR personnel.
Keeping updated with LLR will not only enhance knowledge but also facilitate its application in the workplace whenever necessary, thereby improving the quality of services provided by HR personnel.
I truly appreciate your efforts in providing high-quality services to those in the HR field. Please keep up the good work.
Thank you once again.
Regards,
Sibabrata Majumdar
Management Consultant Legal & HR
Kolkata, Mb: 9830023706
From India, Calcutta
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Korgaonkarji,
Thank you for sharing a summary of judgments reported in the May 2014 issue of the Labour Law Reporter. This is undoubtedly very useful and helpful for all HR professionals. Understanding and applying these judgments in practical situations pose a significant challenge for HR personnel.
Keeping updated with LLR will not only enhance knowledge but also facilitate its application in the workplace whenever necessary, thereby improving the quality of services provided by HR personnel.
I truly appreciate your efforts in providing high-quality services to those in the HR field. Please keep up the good work.
Thank you once again.
Regards,
Sibabrata Majumdar
Management Consultant Legal & HR
Kolkata, Mb: 9830023706
From India, Calcutta
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Keshav Korgaonkar, Sir,
Please let me know if an employer or employee is not satisfied with the orders of Industrial Tribunals (Bonus, profit sharing, PF & Gratuity), can they go to labor courts and other high courts?
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Please let me know if an employer or employee is not satisfied with the orders of Industrial Tribunals (Bonus, profit sharing, PF & Gratuity), can they go to labor courts and other high courts?
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Anonymous friend,
Sh. Keshav Korgaonkar Sir has very well explained in his email dated April 30, 2014, that the matters listed in the third schedule under the ID Act fall under the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunals. He has provided a complete list of the matters that fall within the ambit of the third schedule. Similarly, in the Second schedule, the matters that fall under the jurisdiction of the Labour Court have been listed. Therefore, one should not be confused with Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts as enumerated under the ID Act. Both are parallel courts dealing with different matters mentioned in the respective schedules. If either of the parties is not satisfied with the orders of the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court, the appeal lies in the High Court of the respective State.
BS Kalsi
Member since August 2011
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sh. Keshav Korgaonkar Sir has very well explained in his email dated April 30, 2014, that the matters listed in the third schedule under the ID Act fall under the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunals. He has provided a complete list of the matters that fall within the ambit of the third schedule. Similarly, in the Second schedule, the matters that fall under the jurisdiction of the Labour Court have been listed. Therefore, one should not be confused with Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts as enumerated under the ID Act. Both are parallel courts dealing with different matters mentioned in the respective schedules. If either of the parties is not satisfied with the orders of the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court, the appeal lies in the High Court of the respective State.
BS Kalsi
Member since August 2011
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear BS Kalsi ji, I just want to add to your reply to our Anonymous friend that before going to High court as you said, you need to file an appeal in Appellate Tribunal.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Respected Keshav Korgaonkar Sir,
I am grateful for your subsequent mail which has really enriched my knowledge. I have gone through the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, where the provisions relating to the Appellate Tribunal have been laid down. A doubt has arisen in my mind as to whether the Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction only over the matters dealt with by Industrial Tribunals listed in the third schedule under the ID Act, or if it has been empowered to deal with the matters dealt with by the Labour court as well. Secondly, whether the matters dealt with by the National Tribunal constituted under Section 7B of the ID Act are also appealable before the Appellate Tribunal or if the appeal lies directly in the High Court of the respective state.
BS Kalsi
Member since August 2011
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am grateful for your subsequent mail which has really enriched my knowledge. I have gone through the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, where the provisions relating to the Appellate Tribunal have been laid down. A doubt has arisen in my mind as to whether the Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction only over the matters dealt with by Industrial Tribunals listed in the third schedule under the ID Act, or if it has been empowered to deal with the matters dealt with by the Labour court as well. Secondly, whether the matters dealt with by the National Tribunal constituted under Section 7B of the ID Act are also appealable before the Appellate Tribunal or if the appeal lies directly in the High Court of the respective state.
BS Kalsi
Member since August 2011
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Keshav Ji,
Thank you very much for providing such useful information. Could you please clarify the point mentioned below:
"Contractual employees will not be covered by Rules and Regulations of Haryana Government."
Which specific rules and regulations are being referred to here? Kindly provide further details.
Regards,
Dinesh Kumar
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you very much for providing such useful information. Could you please clarify the point mentioned below:
"Contractual employees will not be covered by Rules and Regulations of Haryana Government."
Which specific rules and regulations are being referred to here? Kindly provide further details.
Regards,
Dinesh Kumar
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear BS Kalsi ji,
I am delighted by the kind words of appreciation from you and other members. Subsection 1 of Section 7 of the ID (AT) Act 1950 states that an appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal from any award or decision of the Industrial Tribunal if: (i) the appeal involves any substantial question of law; or (ii) the award or decision is in respect of matters stated in Schedule III, as you mentioned.
I am not a practicing advocate, but upon reading the provision, I formed the view that an appeal may lie directly to the High Court or Supreme Court from any award or decision of the National Tribunal. I may also be mistaken. Experts are invited to participate in this discussion.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am delighted by the kind words of appreciation from you and other members. Subsection 1 of Section 7 of the ID (AT) Act 1950 states that an appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal from any award or decision of the Industrial Tribunal if: (i) the appeal involves any substantial question of law; or (ii) the award or decision is in respect of matters stated in Schedule III, as you mentioned.
I am not a practicing advocate, but upon reading the provision, I formed the view that an appeal may lie directly to the High Court or Supreme Court from any award or decision of the National Tribunal. I may also be mistaken. Experts are invited to participate in this discussion.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Keshav,
Today, I had a discussion with one of my friends regarding the subject mentioned below: "Industrial Tribunal, not Labour Court, to decide matters pertaining to bonus - HP HC 474."
During that time, he explained that if the strength of the employees is less than 100, then the Labour Court can decide on matters pertaining to the Payment of Bonus Act. If the strength is more than 100, then only the Industrial Tribunal will come into the picture.
This is for your information, please.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Today, I had a discussion with one of my friends regarding the subject mentioned below: "Industrial Tribunal, not Labour Court, to decide matters pertaining to bonus - HP HC 474."
During that time, he explained that if the strength of the employees is less than 100, then the Labour Court can decide on matters pertaining to the Payment of Bonus Act. If the strength is more than 100, then only the Industrial Tribunal will come into the picture.
This is for your information, please.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Dinesh Kumar ji,
This is a matter before Punjab and Haryana HC between Madhu Sudan vs. Presiding Officer, LC & other in which the workman is a special conductor appointed on a contractual basis by Haryana Govt. Transport. The workman committed fraud, misappropriation of money by tampering official records, waybill, etc. He also misbehaved with one passenger.
In the domestic enquiry, he was found guilty of charges. During the inquiry, he even begged forgiveness before the EO for his wrongdoing.
His services were terminated. On the failure of the appeal against the termination order, he raised an industrial dispute. In this dispute, the labor court said that the inquiry conducted was fair and proper and dismissed the matter.
The workman then filed a writ petition challenging the order of the labor court on the ground that the rules prescribed under Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 were not followed while conducting the inquiry.
In this case, it is held that the rules and regulations of the Haryana Govt. are not applicable to contractual employees.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This is a matter before Punjab and Haryana HC between Madhu Sudan vs. Presiding Officer, LC & other in which the workman is a special conductor appointed on a contractual basis by Haryana Govt. Transport. The workman committed fraud, misappropriation of money by tampering official records, waybill, etc. He also misbehaved with one passenger.
In the domestic enquiry, he was found guilty of charges. During the inquiry, he even begged forgiveness before the EO for his wrongdoing.
His services were terminated. On the failure of the appeal against the termination order, he raised an industrial dispute. In this dispute, the labor court said that the inquiry conducted was fair and proper and dismissed the matter.
The workman then filed a writ petition challenging the order of the labor court on the ground that the rules prescribed under Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 were not followed while conducting the inquiry.
In this case, it is held that the rules and regulations of the Haryana Govt. are not applicable to contractual employees.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Boss,
Industrial tribunals mainly decide collective disputes relating to matters specified in the second or third schedule, while labor courts handle individual disputes related to matters specified in the second schedule.
Typically, a dispute concerning a matter specified in the third schedule should be referred to the industrial tribunal. However, as per the provisions under section 10(1), such disputes can be referred to a labor court if the affected workmen are not more than 100.
Industrial Tribunals are established under section 7(a) of the ID Act for adjudicating industrial disputes on matters specified in the second or third schedule. Given the specific provision under the third schedule concerning bonuses, it is evident that only industrial tribunals have jurisdiction to decide disputes related to bonuses unless such functions are explicitly assigned to labor courts.
I hope this clarifies the distinction between the roles of Industrial Tribunals and Labor Courts in deciding bonus-related disputes.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Industrial tribunals mainly decide collective disputes relating to matters specified in the second or third schedule, while labor courts handle individual disputes related to matters specified in the second schedule.
Typically, a dispute concerning a matter specified in the third schedule should be referred to the industrial tribunal. However, as per the provisions under section 10(1), such disputes can be referred to a labor court if the affected workmen are not more than 100.
Industrial Tribunals are established under section 7(a) of the ID Act for adjudicating industrial disputes on matters specified in the second or third schedule. Given the specific provision under the third schedule concerning bonuses, it is evident that only industrial tribunals have jurisdiction to decide disputes related to bonuses unless such functions are explicitly assigned to labor courts.
I hope this clarifies the distinction between the roles of Industrial Tribunals and Labor Courts in deciding bonus-related disputes.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Respected Korgaonkar Ji,
In reference to your trailing mail, I wish to submit that though in practice, we see that generally the matters relating to individual disputes are dealt with by the Labour Court notwithstanding all the matters specified in the Second Schedule are disputes of a collective nature. The matters relating to standing orders, withdrawal of customary concession/privilege, strike, or lock-out, etc., cannot be individual disputes. It is true that the Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction over the matters specified in either the Second or Third Schedule, whereas the Labour Court's jurisdiction is confined to the matters specified in the Second Schedule.
BS Kalsi
Member since August 2011
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In reference to your trailing mail, I wish to submit that though in practice, we see that generally the matters relating to individual disputes are dealt with by the Labour Court notwithstanding all the matters specified in the Second Schedule are disputes of a collective nature. The matters relating to standing orders, withdrawal of customary concession/privilege, strike, or lock-out, etc., cannot be individual disputes. It is true that the Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction over the matters specified in either the Second or Third Schedule, whereas the Labour Court's jurisdiction is confined to the matters specified in the Second Schedule.
BS Kalsi
Member since August 2011
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
Amendment to Payment of Bonus Act 2015.jpg
Bigger bonuses for more as Lok Sabha amends Payment of Bonus Act - The Economic Times.pdf
THE PAYMENT OF BONUS ACT.doc