Category: Labour Cases

Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981- Dispute over the permanent status of certain workmen – The Court considered whether the Act, 1981 applies to the parties and if the suggestion to institute an ‘Industrial Disputes Claim’ was sustainable – The Corporation argued that the Act and the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 do not apply to them, and that certain activities, like construction, exempt them from the Act – The Union argued that the Corporation has exploited temporary employees for years and that the Inspector of Labour’s order granting permanent status should not be questioned – The Corporation’s appeal was dismissed, and the Union’s appeal was allowed – The Court found the Corporation an industrial establishment, and the employees had uninterrupted service qualifying them for permanent status – The Court analyzed the Act’s definitions, the Corporation’s activities, and previous orders and judgments – The Court concluded that the Act applies to the dispute, and the Inspector of Labour’s findings should not have been disturbed.

(2024) INSC 446 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TAMIL NADU MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. TAMIL NADU MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION EMPLOYEES WELFARE UNION AND ANOTHER — Respondent…

The main issues revolve around the revision of pay scales, allowances, and the comparability of the employer’s units for wage determination – unal to re-examine the case afresh within six months – The Court found that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and making independent factual determinations – The Court referenced several cases to establish the scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction and the industry-cum-region test for wage revision

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE VVF LTD. EMPLOYEES UNION — Appellant Vs. M/S. VVF INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar,…

Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Section 3, 7 and 10(3) – Transferring of employees between different units of the company – – The Supreme Court refers to the case of Cipla Ltd. to assert that the terms of employment and Standing Orders do not conflict, and transfers are permissible – The Court analyzes the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, particularly Sections 7 and 10, to determine the operation and modification of Standing Orders – The Supreme Court concludes that the transfers were legal, overturns the High Court’s judgment, and dismisses the writ petitions filed by the respondents – The Court does not address the broader issue of the power to modify Standing Orders.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. DIVGI METAL WARES LTD. — Appellant Vs. M/S. DIVGI METAL WARES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…

Employees Provident Fund And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – Section 1(3)(B) – Establishments of factories – Clause (a) of sub-Section (3) is applicable only to those factories engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I – Clause (b) of sub-Section (3) is applicable to all other establishments which are not covered by clause (a) of sub-Section (3) provided such establishments are notified by a notification issued by the Central Government which is published in the official Gazette

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THANKAMMA BABY — Appellant Vs. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, KOCHI, KERALA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ.…

Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – Compensation – the driver was consistently driving the vehicle, there is every reason to assume that long spells of driving was a material contributory factor, if not the sole cause that accelerated his unexpected death at a young age – Such an untoward mishap can reasonably be described as an accident, only attributable to the nature of employment – Compensation granted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. DARIYAO KANWAR & OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and…

Government of Kerala covering Medical institutions which included nursing homes, diagnostic centres and pathological laboratories employing 20 or more persons were brought under the ambit of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 – High Court rightly held that the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 will be applicable to the respondent establishment w.e.f. 06.09.2007 and not from 22.11.2002.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH E.S.I. CORPORATION, REP. BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR — Appellant Vs. M/S. ENDOCRINOLOGY AND IMMUNOLOGY LAB — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Rajesh…

Determination of disability – the disablement would be taken as total for the purposes of award of compensation under section 4(1)(b) of the Act regardless of the injury sustained being not one as specified in Part I of Schedule I of the Act – The proviso to clause (l) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act does not dilute the import of the substantive clause – Rather, it adds to it by specifying categories wherein it shall be deemed that there is permanent total disablement.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDRA BAI — Appellant Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Civil…

HELD government employees cannot claim double overtime allowance as per the Factories Act, if the service rules do not provide for it – whether employees working as supervisors at the Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India (a company under the Ministry of Finance responsible for minting currency notes) are entitled to double overtime allowance as per the Factories Act 1948 – No

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SECURITY PRINTING AND MINTING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS ETC. — Appellant Vs. VIJAY D. KASBE AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.