Allahabad High CourtIndustrial Disputes Act | Labour Court Has Ample Power To Examine Correctness Of Finding Of Inquiry Officer In Discharge Or Dismissal Order: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: Charan Pal Singh vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court Second Up Ghaziabad And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 264Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 264The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh...
Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Charan Pal Singh vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court Second Up Ghaziabad And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 264
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 264
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Pathak held that the Labour Court has been given ample power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to examine the correctness of the finding returned by the Inquiry Officer in passing the discharge or dismissal order.
The High Court held that Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act denotes the power of the Labour Courts/ Tribunal/ National Tribunal to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workman. It held that while examining the matter for granting relief to the workman, Labour Court is entrusted power to examine the legality and validity of the discharge/dismissal order.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs Shri Dattatraya Ganpat Bankhele
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 2574 of 2017
The High Court of Bombay single bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that lengthy periods of absence from duty without proper leave documentation are unjustified, regardless of the plausibility of the reason behind the absence.
The High Court acknowledged that the Labour Court's decision of reinstatement of the absent employee with 25% back wages could not be reversed as the employer failed to challenge it. However, the Industrial Court was unjustified to increase the back wages to 100%, in the absence of concrete reasons.
Abandonment Of Service Needs To Be Established By Conduction Of Enquiry: Bombay High Court
Case No.- Writ Petition NO. 1025 OF 2024
Case Name- Bhushan Industries vs Lohasingh Ramavadh Yadav
A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice Sandeep V. Marne while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Bhushan Industries vs Lohasingh Ramavadh Yadav has held that abandonment of service is a question of fact that needs to be established by conduction of an enquiry.
The court further observed that abandonment of service is a question of fact that needs to be established by conduction of an enquiry. If the Petitioner actually believed that the Respondent has abandoned his services, at least a show cause notice ought to have been issued to the Respondent. Since correspondence was on going between the Petitioner and the Respondent, it was possible for the Petitioner to conduct an enquiry accusing the Respondent of absconding from his duties.
Case Title: Indus Towers Limited vs Rajendra Patil (Yedravkar) and
Anr. and Connected Matter.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.1858 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice Amit Borkar held that for the proceedings under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, the relationship between employer-employee should be undisputed. The court held that in absence of such a relationship, the labour court or the industrial court doesn't have any jurisdiction to deal with the matter falling under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970.
The High Court referred to the decision of Supreme Court in Cipla, Ltd Vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union reported in (2001) 2 L.L.N. 19 and underscored the pivotal role of an undisputed employer-employee relationship in invoking the jurisdiction of labor courts or industrial adjudicating authorities. It held that unless such a relationship is firmly established, inquiries into unfair labor practices cannot be initiated under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act.
Calcutta High Court
Case No.- WP. CT 154 of 2023
Case Name- Md. Farid Vs. Union of India & Ors
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Uday Kumar while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Md. Farid Vs. Union of India & Ors has held that an employee is entitled to interest on the withheld amount of gratuity upon acquittal in the criminal proceedings pending against him on the date of his retirement.
The court further held that:
“When the employee has been acquitted in the criminal proceeding which was pending against him at the time of superannuation, he cannot be held to be at fault disentitling him to the interest over the gratuity amount on and from the date of his superannuation till the date of his acquittal in the concerned criminal proceeding”
The court thus observed that the gratuity amount was withheld by the Respondents at their own risk on the basis of the mere assumption that the Petitioner may be found guilty after conclusion of the criminal proceedings. Thus, the Respondents cannot deny the payment of interest over the withheld gratuity amount.
Case Title: Director General, Delhi Doordarshan Kendra vs Mohd. Shahbaz Khan and Others
Case No.: LPA 242/2024, CM APPL.18228/2024 (stay), CM APPL.18229/2024 (delay of 50 days) & CM APPL. 18230/2024 (exemption) + LPA 243/2024, CM APPL.18232/2024 (stay), CM APPL.18233/2024 (delay of 50 days) & CM APPL. 18234/2024 (exemption) + LPA 244/2024, CAV 150/2024, CM APPL.18238/2024 (stay), CM APPL.18239/2024 (delay of 50 days) & CM APPL. 18240/2024 -Ex + LPA 245/2024, CM APPL.18245/2024 (stay), CM APPL.18246/2024 (delay of 50 days) & CM APPL. 18247/2024 (exemption) + LPA 246/2024, CM APPL.18251/2024 (stay), CM APPL.18252/2024 (delay of 50 days) & CM APPL. 18253/2024 (exemption).
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain held that the scope of intervention of the High Court is very limited in matters of factual findings made by Industrial Tribunals unless they were found to be perverse or based on no evidence.
The High Court was adjudicating on the letters patent appeals filed by Delhi Doordarshan Kendra, which was accused of illegally terminating the employment of its permanent workers by falsely claiming them as 'contract workers'. It was already factually determined by the Industrial Tribunal that the Management was not authorized to employ contract workers, as it lacked a license under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, of 1970.
Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Bhimnath R Yadav and Ors. Vs Trivedi Crafts Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 50
The Gujarat High Court division bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav and Justice Pranav Trivedi summarily dismissed an appeal filed against Trivedi Crafts, an Ahmedabad-based marble dealer. The bench perused Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 80B of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1996 and held that the procedural requirements of retrenchment were duly followed by providing notice in the prescribed form and offering one month's wages to the affected workers in lieu of notice.
Section 25F of the ID Act provides conditions precedent to the retrenchment of workmen. These conditions include providing the workman with one month's written notice or wages in lieu of notice, paying compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for each completed year of service, and serving notice to the appropriate government authority.
Rule 80-B of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules prescribes Form XXIV for releasing the notice of retrenchment. Further, it indicates that if such a notice is not given within 7 days of retrenchment, the workmen must be paid wages in lieu of such notice.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Smt. N. Bhuvaneshwari vs The Management of M/s Ambuthirtha Power Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 49982/2018 (L-TER) C/W Writ Petition No.6531/2019 (L-RES)
The High Court of Karnataka single bench of Mrs Justice K.S Hemalekha held that persons carrying managerial and supervisory responsibilities do not fall within the scope of 'workman', as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Once it is determined that the person is not a 'workman' under the Act, the labour court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate whether their termination was proper or not.
Case Title: The Divisional Controller (South), N.W.K.R.T.C. vs Vasant B Jogi
Case Number: WP No. 105424 of 2023
The Karnataka High Court single-judge bench of Justice Shivshankar Amarannavar held that when an industrial dispute is pending in an adjudicatory body, the employer must seek approval from the Tribunal for the dismissal of the worker, as mandated by Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. If any approval is not sought and granted, such dismissal would be deemed void.
Regarding the complaint filed by the Workman under Section 33-A of the ID Act, the High Court held that there is no specified limitation for filing such a complaint. It clarified that while Section 2-A(3) imposes a three-year limitation for making an application under Section 2-A(2), there's no limitation provided for raising an Industrial Dispute under Section 2-A(1). It held that the term "shall adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it" in Section 33-A(b) merely denotes the procedural protocol to be followed by the Tribunal/Labour Court and doesn't imply any limitation for referring a dispute.