Sir, If a company is not paying even after enquiry is over and the dispute is in the courts, is it required to raise a seperate case for non payment of wages in the labour court?
From India, Kanpur
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1From India, Kanpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You can, but I will suggest you ask your lawyer or if you are representing yourself, then add this to the plea. This is directly related to and results from your visit to the labor court.
To apply more pressure, visit the labor inspector and request an investigation under the Shops and Establishment Act. If your PF or ESI contributions are also outstanding, visit the respective enforcement offices and file a complaint.
From India, Kolkata
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
To apply more pressure, visit the labor inspector and request an investigation under the Shops and Establishment Act. If your PF or ESI contributions are also outstanding, visit the respective enforcement offices and file a complaint.
From India, Kolkata
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The post lacks certain vital information without which it would not be possible to offer any suggestion regarding the individual's unpaid wages. Whether the individual is a workman as per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and if the enquiry was over, whether the individual was placed under suspension pending enquiry and paid subsistence allowance? If the dispute is pending in court, whether any punishment was awarded merging the period of suspension, if any, with it and is there any mention in the reference in this regard?
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The very basic facts & case history is wanting in your question. No purposeful opinion is possible in such an academic type of question.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Yes, the individual is a 'WORKMAN' as per the I.D. Act of 1947. After the inquiry was over, no sustenance allowance was paid, neither before nor after. Moreover, no punishment was awarded after the closure of the inquiry. It was just informed that punitive action could be taken against you for your alleged misconduct of not resuming your duties after the transfer.
From India, Kanpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Kanpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Subject: Inquiry Regarding Case Status
M/s Pharma Company HR,
First of all, you should clarify whether you are affected or you are asking on behalf of a worker or on behalf of the management, as nothing can be construed from your ID, "Pharma Company HR."
Secondly, you have still not stated the status of the case after the issue of notice. Has the worker replied to the notice or not? If yes, what was the substance of his reply and what action does the management propose to take?
Thirdly, has the worker filed a case in the labor court or not? If a case has been filed, what is the outcome of that case?
Your prompt response to these queries would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
M/s Pharma Company HR,
First of all, you should clarify whether you are affected or you are asking on behalf of a worker or on behalf of the management, as nothing can be construed from your ID, "Pharma Company HR."
Secondly, you have still not stated the status of the case after the issue of notice. Has the worker replied to the notice or not? If yes, what was the substance of his reply and what action does the management propose to take?
Thirdly, has the worker filed a case in the labor court or not? If a case has been filed, what is the outcome of that case?
Your prompt response to these queries would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is a case of a co-worker. The worker has claimed in court that the management does not have any certified standing orders. In the absence of the same, the worker cannot be transferred out of the state without his prior consent as per Rule 13(6) of the Industrial Dispute Act. Management's reply is awaited, but the question remains: to date, management has not paid a single penny after the transfer. Is it justified?
From India, Kanpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Kanpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi, Mr. Pharma Company HR (whosoever you are),
From your posts, it appears either you are not fully aware of the case history or are trying to play with the wits of the community members of CiteHR by posting a test question to gauge their knowledge.
The referred Act does not contain Rules; instead, it contains Sections. Even if you referred to a Rule from the Industrial Rules, there is no Rule 13(6A) in those Rules. Rule 13 pertains to the place and time of hearing, not to the CSO or the transfer of the workers.
Furthermore, if you intended to mention a section of the Act, there is no Section 13(6A) in the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 13 relates to the duties of the Board, so there is no connection to CSO or worker transfers.
If there does exist a Rule or Section 13(6A) in the Industrial Disputes Rules or Act of any State, please specify the state to which the case relates so that the relevant Rule or section can be referenced for a response.
Moreover, if your story holds any truth, kindly revisit my questions and provide information corresponding to each question, rather than introducing a different narrative.
Additionally, please elaborate on the background of the case by addressing the following questions:
1) How and when was the worker transferred, and from where to where?
2) Did the worker report for duty at the new location? If not, since when has the worker been absent?
3) Which inquiry are you referring to - a domestic inquiry or an inquiry conducted by the labor department?
Without a proper background of the case, a viable solution cannot be expected. Otherwise, contradictory responses based on speculative guesses may be received from the respondents.
Attempting to acquire knowledge based on vague questions could potentially harm your co-worker more than it benefits them.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From your posts, it appears either you are not fully aware of the case history or are trying to play with the wits of the community members of CiteHR by posting a test question to gauge their knowledge.
The referred Act does not contain Rules; instead, it contains Sections. Even if you referred to a Rule from the Industrial Rules, there is no Rule 13(6A) in those Rules. Rule 13 pertains to the place and time of hearing, not to the CSO or the transfer of the workers.
Furthermore, if you intended to mention a section of the Act, there is no Section 13(6A) in the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 13 relates to the duties of the Board, so there is no connection to CSO or worker transfers.
If there does exist a Rule or Section 13(6A) in the Industrial Disputes Rules or Act of any State, please specify the state to which the case relates so that the relevant Rule or section can be referenced for a response.
Moreover, if your story holds any truth, kindly revisit my questions and provide information corresponding to each question, rather than introducing a different narrative.
Additionally, please elaborate on the background of the case by addressing the following questions:
1) How and when was the worker transferred, and from where to where?
2) Did the worker report for duty at the new location? If not, since when has the worker been absent?
3) Which inquiry are you referring to - a domestic inquiry or an inquiry conducted by the labor department?
Without a proper background of the case, a viable solution cannot be expected. Otherwise, contradictory responses based on speculative guesses may be received from the respondents.
Attempting to acquire knowledge based on vague questions could potentially harm your co-worker more than it benefits them.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The worker was transferred from Kanpur (U.P.) to Chennai (Tamil Nadu) in Dec. '14.
The worker did not join his duties but raised a C.B. dispute in the labor court which is still in progress. The management, after the transfer, made a domestic inquiry alleging 'Misconduct' for not obeying the transfer order, which was also closed within 2 months without any punishment. Till date, no interim relief/no salary, etc., has been provided. The transfer is against the Model Standing Orders of U.P.
From India, Kanpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The worker did not join his duties but raised a C.B. dispute in the labor court which is still in progress. The management, after the transfer, made a domestic inquiry alleging 'Misconduct' for not obeying the transfer order, which was also closed within 2 months without any punishment. Till date, no interim relief/no salary, etc., has been provided. The transfer is against the Model Standing Orders of U.P.
From India, Kanpur
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.
Ordinance of Maharashtra Govt for Cheque Payment or Account Transfer of Bonus.pdf
Jan 14 - Staff Salary Income and Payment.xls