Labour Law Case Judgments m75c

Year

Name of the case Narinder Kumar vs State of Punjab Hanuman Prasad Choudhary vs Rajasthan UPSRTC v UP parivahan Nigam Shishuks Berozgar UP Rajya Vidyut Parishad Apprentice Welfare Association vs UP

Section

Apprentice Act

1985

section 22

Apprentice Act

1986

Apprentice Act

1995

Apprentice Act

2000

Apprentice Act

2004

CLRA

2001

SAIL I

Section 10

CLRA

1997

Air India Case

Section 10

CLRA

2003

NTPC Vs. Karri Pothuraju

Section 10

CLRA

1985

CLRA

2006

SAIL-II Case

Section 10

CLRA

2006

APSRTC

Section 10

CLRA

1997

CLRA

1974

CLRA

1992

CLRA

1997

Deena Nath v. National Fertilizers Ltd. Hindustan Steel works Construction v. Commissioner of Labour

CLRA

2009

Panki Thermal Station

Section 2 section 22

Section 22

UP State Electricity Board vs Shiv Mohan Singh section 4

BHEL Workers Association vs Union Of India Section 10

Senior regional Manager,FCI vs Tulsi Das bauri Section 21 Gammon India Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Section 12 Rule 25 Same Similar work Rule 25 Same Similar work

Gujarat State Electricity Board Vs Union of India Section 10 Dipak Sarkar v. State of Bihar Shankari Prasad Vs Union of India Sajjan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

CLRA

1995

CLRA

1997

Consitution

1951

Consitution

1965

Consitution

1967

Consitution

1971

Consitution

1982

Consitution

1993

Keshava Nanda Bharati Vs State of Kerala Article 13 Randhir Singh vs Union of India Section 14 Indira Sawhney Vs Union of India - Mandal Case Article 16

Consitution

1962

Kameshwar Prasad Vs State of Bihar Article 19(1)(a)(b)

Golak Nath Vs State of Punjab

Consitution

1962

All India Bank Employers Association Vs National Industrial Tribulation

Consitution

1982

Asiad Case

Consitution Consitution Consitution

Consitution

Article 19(1)(c)

Article 21, Article 23

1986 1975 1978

Olga Tellis Vs Bombay Municipal Corporation(Pavement Dweller case) Article 21 Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain Maneka Gandhi Case

1979

Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs International Airport Authority of India Section 12

Consitution

1981

Consitution

1997

Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi Section 12

Consitution

Vishaka vs state of Rajasthan Unni Krishnan vs State of 1993 AP

Consitution

1955 Bengal Immunity

Factories Act

1975

Factories Act

1984

section 14 Section 21 Section 141

Factories Act

state of Gujarat vs ND Shah Section 2(m) P.S.S. Sunder Rao, CMC ,Vellore v. Inspector of Factories, Vellore Section 2(m) State of UP vs M.P.Singh and others Section 2(l)

Factories Act

1977

Jyoti Switchgears Ltd Vs Chief Inspector of Factories Section 2(n)

Factories Act

1998

Indian Oil Corp Ltd Vs Chief Inspector of Factories Section 2(n)

Factories Act

1992

Cricket Club of India Ltd. Vs. E.S.I. Corpn Section 2(k)

Factories Act

1996

Factories Act

1992

Factories Act

2003

E.S.I Corp. v. Indian Textile Mills Section 21 Workmen of Ashok Leyland Ltd and Ashok Leylan Co-op Canteen Ltd v. Ashok Leyland & others Section 46 NTPC Vs Karri Pothuraju & others Section 46

Factories Act

Shankar Balaji Waje v. State of Maharashtra Section 80

Factories Act

Employers Association of Northern India Vs. Secretary of Labour Section 49

1952

Description

Explanation

SC quashed HC judgment.Taking trained apprentices is not reservation. Contractual Principle of harmonious construction, for S 2(s) IDA and S. 18 Apprentice act 4 guidelines - 1.preference over direct recruits, 2.not needed to be sponsored by an employment The apprentice will have to take an exam or an interview before being absorbed (Viva - Written exam ratio)

The trained apprentices appealed to HC but plea was rejected stating that together with SC/ST An apprentice not covered by apprentice act shall be governed by ID Act, but an apprentice who is getting

Effect of non-regn of apprenticeship contract, even if it is not regd an apprentice continues to be an apprentice and doesn't become a workman Absorption of contract labors after prohibition is not While sending the notification of abolishing the mandatory. Prospective Over ruling of Air India goverment after consulting the central advisory board Case 1996 must look into the 4 conditions- Sec 10 (2) a-d The contract workers must be absorbed by the company, reached this decision by objecta scriptaabsorb the laboures Canteen is essential under Sec 46 of the factories act. Employees to be regularized. It is not possible for Supreme Court to enquire about abolishing Contract Labour. Only the Appropriate Govt. can do it.. Neither Labour Court nor Writ court could determine whether contract labour should be abolished or not. this being the exclusive domain of Appropriate Govt Section 10 not ed .The high court could not exercise of its jursdiction under Art 226, direct absorption of respondants, on grounds that the work done by contract labour was perennial. The respondants have to approach the Industrial Tribunal and establish scam and camouflage Contractor is liable to pay wages,failing which principal employer becomes liable Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14 not violated on basis of Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of reasonable restriction and intelligible diffrentia the Contract Labour Act respectively Contract labour cannot become employees of principal employer merely because contractor or employer has not obtained license or registration respectively. Wages paid by Contractor to his workers shall be equal to the wages paid by the principal employer to his workers doing similar works. Commisioner was required to consider basic pleading and materials by both parties to arrive at a conclusion that work is same

Supreme Court recommended that the Central Government should amend the Act by incorporating a suitable provision to refer to industrial adjudicator the question of the direct employment of the workers of the ex-contractor in the principal establishments, when the appropriate Government abolishes the contract labour. Sham and Camouflage conditions Appropriate government for contractor will be same as of principal employer. Amendment is not a law

Amendment of rights is allowed under Article 368

Amendment is not a law Amendment is a law, but no previous amendments will be declared null and void, First time prospective overruling Article 13(4) is valid Ruling party can NOT change the Basic Structure of the constitution Equal pay for equal work is deducible from Article 14,16, 39(d) and Preamble.

Amendment of rights is allowed under Article 368

Parliament cannot amend the basic structure of the Indian constitution. Directive principles are superior to fundamental rights.

Creamy layer + 50% cap on reservation Peaceful and orderly demonstration a fundamental 19(1) - Speech and expression + 19(b) - peaceful right as a result of Article 19(1)(a)(b) assembly Right to form unions under Article 19(1)(c) does not carry with the right to collectively bargain and hold a strike. These were later on made a legal right, but they are not a fundamental right Violation of article 23 (minimum wages), Issues like Child Labour, Contract Labour violation should not be handled by meagre fine, but adequately punished But later on, the court found that Right to Livelihood was untenable in India given the present situation(Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' union v/s Delhi stration), so it was shifted to Article 21 includes Right to livelihood as well Directive Principle Free Election is a basic structure Right to life includes right to live with dignity The test to determine as to when a corporation can A corporation can be said to be an instrumentality of be said to be an instrumentality or agency of the government if: 1. Government hold a large share Government. in the corporation. 2. Financial assistance by the state to meet almost entire expenditure 3. Corporations enjoys monoply or protection by the state 4. Deep and Prevasive state control 5. Functions are public importance and related to state 6. if a department of state is transfered to a corporation

The case questions if a corporation was created by The court reasoned that irrespective of the origins of a corporation be it by a statute or a government the state by a statuate or under a statuate then company or a company formed under the comapnies does it qualify as an instumrntality of the state? act 1956 etc,- the corporations will only be considered an instrumenatlity of the government within the meaning of article 12 and on the assesment of the relevent facts. Laid down guidlines to prevent sexual harrasment of working women in place of their work until a legislation to this effect is enacted Right to education upto the age of 14 is a fundamental right law made by SC is binding on all courts not including itself not necessarily 10 workers at the time of visit of factory inspector Laundry connected to hospital washing only hospital's clothes not a factory Field Workers dont come under definition of workers. If by resolution a company puts a person with ultimate control on the affair of the factory then that person can be considered an owner

In State, 2(n)(iii) applicable instead of 2(n)(ii) Preparation of food and beverages and its sale to the of club are also included in the definition of ‘manufacturing process’ Worker disobeyed the direction and got injured but not putting an underguard to the transmission machinery is a contravention on the part of the employer.

Need not absorb workers since canteen run by cooperative society has to absorb employees Case of employee not covered in the definition of worker not allowed benefits of payment of wages during leave period It was held that the employer should appoint a Welfare Officer, even if the factory employs over 500 workers only for a few months in the year and not continuously.

-Who pays salary

Finally in 1993, in another case, the court observed that Right to Livelihood ensures that before firing any employee, the management must give him a chance to explain himself. The principal of natural justice should be followed

Natural Justice principle: a) Free from bias and interest in the subject matter. b) audi alteram partem - reasonable opportunity to be heard. Not issued against a private body.