Gist of Recent Court Cases (India)

by Ms Adshilakshmi Logamurthy
 

Ms Adhilakshmi Logamurthy is practicing in Madras High Court, Chennai, India. She can be contacted at adhilogu@rediffmail.com  or  90, Additional Law Chambers, High Court, Madras - 600104. She will be contributing on legal matters for benefit of HR Era members from time to time.
 

HR Era Issue 57, May 15th, 2005

Employees of Canteen run by a Contractor under Factories Act seeking Declaration as Workmen of Factory: Dismissed

Employees of canteen in a factory run under a contractor in terms of contract agreement would be employees only for the purpose of Factories Act and not any other purpose. Writ Appeal by the employees of canteen run by a Contractor seeking declaration that they are workmen was dismissed. Decision of Single Judge was upheld. 2005(I) MLJ 686 (Madras).

Malafide Transfer - Amounts to Unfair Labour Practice:

Sec 25(T) & 33(2) of ID Act. Malafide transfer stayed by Tribunal. Tribunal has the power to stay. Unfair labour practice means any practice specified in the 5th Schedule. To transfer a workman malafide from one place to another, under the guise of management policy amounts to unfair labour practice. 2004(4) LLN 304 (Rajasthan HC).

Apprentice recruited under the Apprentices Act is a Trainee:

Non registration of Apprenticeship Agreement with Apprenticeship Advisor does not result in breach of contract and the status of incumbent is not changed from Apprentice to that of workman. U/S 4(4) registration is only a directory requirement. Sec 22 has no statutory liability to give employment. 2004(4) LLN 806.
 

HR Era Issue 54, Dec 26th, 2004

Apprentices cannot claim Right to Appointment

Madras High Court rejected the claim of an apprentice for permanent appointment on completion of apprenticeship.

City Compensatory Allowance is a part of wage for purposes of calculation of bonus:

Section 2(21) & Sec 10 of the Bonus Act. It was held by the Madras High Court that Exgratia paid should not be construed as compensating whatsoever deficiency caused due to non inclusion of CCA in the wages while calculating minimum bonus. 2004(4)LLN223.

Limitations of Principles of Natural Justice:

Supreme Court held that if a party despite having notice chooses not to appear, he cannot latter claim that he had been denied the fair opportunity of hearing. The principle of Natural Justice cannot be put into a straightjacket formula and must not be stretched too far. 2004(6)SCC299.

Exparte Enquiry?

Holding of exparte enquiry is justified. When the workmen fails to appear and participate in the enquiry despite notice to this effect, S.Muthuraman and others Vs. Labour Court, Madurai and others. 2003(3)LLJ52

Domestic Enquiry?

Discharge of the employee is not justifiable when findings are based on no evidence. 2003(3)LLJ181 (Rajasthan High Court)

Why enquiry officer should give sufficient adjournments and management should ask for an opportunity to let in evidence in the counter itself?

In a writ appeal by the employer bearing No.W.A.553/96 & 408/96 disposed by a Division Bench of Madras High Court on 9.9.2003 the award of the Labour Court was upheld. The Labour Court awarded for reinstatement of the employees with back wages and attendant benefits. The short ground was the enquiry officer failed to grant adjournment sought by the workmen and also held the enquiry defective, since the management did not ask for opportunity in the counter statement to let in evidence in the even of the enquiry being set aside by the Labour Court. The employees were dismissed during 1984 and the writ appeals was disposed of very recently uphold in the Labour Court Award.