Industrial Disputes Act Case Laws - 2011

Dismissal of the case by the court is neither an award under I.D. Act nor determination of Industrial Dispute.
Rajman Shrikrishna Morya vs. Marshal Security Pvt. Ltd. 2011 LLR 25 (Bom. HC)

Part-time employee is entitled to protection under ID Act.
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and Anr. vs. Laxmi Devi and Anr. 2011 LLR 52 (HP HC)
Management is absolutely within their powers to decline the recognition to charge sheeted union office bearer as protected workman. Such employee is not entitled to be nominated by union for recognition as protected workman under sec. 33(3) & (4) of ID Act
Hill Life Care Ltd. vs. Hindustan Latex Union (AITUC) 2011 (128) FLR 471 (Kerala HC)

Reducing the pay by merging 50% DA in basic would be illegal without complying with the Sec. 9A of the ID Act.
Sikh Educational Society vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh. 2011 LLR 159 (P & H HC)

When the ID Act contemplates several steps like conciliation before reference to labour court, High Court can't circumvent the process and direct for reference for adjudication straight way.
SPIC Pharma Employees Union (SPEU), Cuddalore vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and Ors. 2011 LLR 275 (Mad. HC)

Overtime can't be claimed under sec. 33C(2) of the ID Act.
K.S. Natarajan, S/o. K.A. Srinivasan, Chennai vs. (1) Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai (2) Ananda Vikatan Vasan Publications Ltd., Chennai. 2010 (4) LLN 702 (Mad. HC)

For any breach of settlement, matter of dispute is to be referred by the Govt. for adjudication under ID Act since remedy is available under sec. 36A. Writ not maintainable.
Tamil Nadu Pokkuvarathu Kazhaga T. Nala Sangam vs. Sate of Tamil Nadu. 2010 (128) FLR 688 (Mad. HC)

Since the establishment was involved in manufacturing process of preparation of different articles from forest, will be an industrial establishment under ID Act.
Kishan Atmaram Kasti vs. Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. & Ors. 2011
(I) CLR 971 (Bom. HC)

When relationship of employer-employee between IIT and workman working in hostel is established, claim of over time payment under sec. 33C(2) of ID Act rightly allowed by Labour Court.

Indian Institute of Technology vs. The Presiding of Officer & Ors. 2011 LLR 591 (Madras HC)

Termination of a workman who is interested in pending dispute, without obtaining approval under section 33(1) of I.D. Act will be illegal. Labour court was not justified in rejecting the application of the workman without examining the legality.
Ashok Kumar Pradhan vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Orissa and Others. 2011 LLR 627 (Orissa HC)

Provisions of section 33C(1) of I.D. Act include the payment arising out of chapter V-B and section 25-O. If consequent of closure of industry, workers were not paid compensation, they can very well claim the
amount under section 33C(1) of I.D. Act.
M/s. United Soya Products Ltd. vs. Dy. Labour Commissioner, Bhopal and Others. 2011 LLR 629 (MP HC)

When an industrial dispute is raised belatedly, it is upon the workman to show that he was not responsible for the delay.
Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Wardha vs. Namdeo Govindrao Nandurkar, Wardha. 2011-II CLR 46 (Bom. HC)

Industrial Dispute between workman & management of co-operative bank shall be decided exclusively by the Labour Court prospectively from date of SC judgment on the point.
Nirmalchandra Sirvastav vs. Labour Court, Varanasi. FLR (129) 2011 P. 370 (All. HC)

The jurisdiction of Industrial Court is not ousted only because the employer denies relationship of employer and employee.
Indo-European Brewaries Ltd. vs. Dnyaneshwar s/o Shyamrao Dhanwate & Ors. CLR I 2011 P. 923 (Bom. HC)
Workman will be entitled to get relief under section 33C(2) of I.D. Act for payment of difference of wages reduced by the employer in contravention of section 9A of the I.D. Act.
Municipality Baretta, Bhatinda vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda and Another. 2011 LLR 818 (P&H HC)

An offence under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act for non-implementation of the Award will be
continuing and section 468 of Criminal Procedure Code, providing for limitation, will not be applicable.
Joytirmay Roy vs. State of Bihar and Others. 2011 (129) FLR 982 (Patna HC)

A legal practitioner, in the capacity of an office-bearer of an Association, can represent an employer before the Labour Court.
South Arcot Vallalar District Mazdoor Union vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore and Others. 2011 (129) FLR 995 (Mad. HC)
In the absence of approval for dismissal pending proceedings, the order of the management terminating the services of workman becomes void ab initio.
Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Sudan Pal. 2011 LLR 897 (Delhi HC)

When workman was discharging his duties of driver after reinstatement, he will be paid current wages as paid to others and not the last drawn wages at the time of termination.
S.G. Ramalingam vs. Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd. 2011 LLR 979 (Mad. HC)

Under sec. 33C(2) of ID Act labour court can interpret the settlement on which employee claim is based and allow the claim.
Registrar, J.N.K.V.V., Jabalpur and Others vs. Sudarshan Singh and Others. 2011 (130) FLR 130 (MP HC)

Claim application under sec. 33C(2) for more than last drawn wages not maintainable as it required further adjudication.
Kagatila Sambasiva Rao vs. Labour Court, Guntur, Guntur District and Others. 2011 (3) LLN 78 (AP HC)
Workmen are entitled to wages from the date of termination where retrenchment was held illegal and such claims of money under sec. 33C(2) rightly awared by court.
Dhanalakshmi Mills Ltd., Tirupur vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore and Ors. 2011 LLR 1028 (Mad. HC)

Labour court order is liable to be quashed when claim under sec. 33C(2) was neither based on existing right nor the award as adjudicated.
State of U.P. and Another vs. Ram Sahai and Another. 2011 LLR 1103 (All. HC)

High Court is not expected to reappriciate the evidence and interfere with the labour court award passed under sec. 33(2)(b) in writ jurisdiction.
Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II & Anr. 2011 LLR 1113 (Del. HC)

Award after attaining finality can't be disturbed under the garb of factual errors.
Hind Filters Employees' Union vs. Factory Manager, Hind Filters Limited and Others. 2011 (130) FLR 675 (MP HC)

It is incumbent upon the workman to submit application to the Labour Court praying for summons for production of relevant record showing that he has worked continuously for a period of 240 days.
Mahesh Kumar Sharma vs. Divisional Forest Officer, M.P. & Ors. LLJ (III) 2011 P. 136 (MP HC)

Reduction of wages cannot be made without issuing a notice under section 9A of the Act.
Sikh Educational Society vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal. FLR (128) 2011 P. 200 (P&H HC)

The labour court award without appreciating the recorded evidence in right perspective is liable to be set aside.
Krishan Kumar Nagar vs. The Management of M/s. Delhi Transport Corporation. 2011 LLR 1191 (Del. HC)

Section 33B of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides power to the State Government for withdrawing any proceeding pending before a Labour Court and transfering the same to another
Labour Court, hence a Labour Court can transfer a dispute to another Labour Court.
Meerut Development Authority, Meerut vs. Labour Court, Saharanpur and Another. 2011(130)FLR 868 (All. HC)

The benefit that is payable under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is pre-existing benefit or flowing from preexisting right.
Crompton Greaves Limited vs. S.B. Lokhande and Others. 2011(130) FLR 908 (Bom. HC)

Compensation amounting to approx 7 years salary will be appropriate to the employee who worked little less than a year.
Bindan Singh vs. Institute of Company Secretaries of India. 2011(131) FLR 95 (Del. HC)

The benefit of overtime allowance was being made available upto 1982 and again from 1987, but when the workmen filed petition under section 33(C)(2) claiming this benefit during the interim period, the denial thereto by the Management, on the basis of departmental circular, is not justified and application is perfectly maintainable.
Faqir Chand vs. Food Corporation of India and Another. 2011(131) FLR 164 (P&H HC)

Labour court is not empowered to entertain a claim under sec. 33(C)(2) of ID Act which is not based on existing right.
Mohan Nagpal vs. Editor, Navbharat Times, New Delhi and Anr. 2011 III CLR 692 (P&H HC)

Conciliation Officer’s bounden duty is either to record / register a settlement or to submit a failure report. He has no power and jurisdiction to declare that a bipartite settlement will be considered as binding
upon all workmen. Vidyut Metalics Employees' Union, Thane vs. Vidyut Metalics Pvt. Ltd., Thane and Ors. 2011 LLR 1262

When the workmen received the amount in terms of settlement without any protest, no claim under 33(C)(2) of ID Act can be made by them. Status of petitioners as to whether they are trainees or workmen can’t be decided under such application.
R. Udayakumar etc. vs. The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai and Anr. 2011 LLR 1265 (Mad. HC)

An ex-parte order by the Labour Court, if not a speaking one and without findings on issues raised, is liable to be quashed.
Management of Venkateswara Electricals P. Ltd., Chennai vs. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai and Anr. 2010 (IV) LLJ 393 (Mad. HC)

In the absence of production of complete pay roll, workman will be presumed to have worked for more than 240 days.
Divisional Forest Officer, Bhiwani vs. Chameli (Smt.) and Others. 2011 LLR 206 (P & H HC)

For claiming closure compensation workman has to prove that he has worked for 240 days during last 12 months. Burden not to be shifted to employer.
VST Industries Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District and Others. 2011 LLR 1170 (AP HC)
Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites linkedin More