Imposing Multiple Punishments Cumulatively On Workman For One Single Act Violates Principle Of Double Jeopardy: Punjab And Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court (“High Court”) single bench of Justice Sanjay Vashisth held that imposition of two punishments cumulatively for one single act of the Workman violates the principle of double jeopardy. The High Court noted that the Labour Court imposed two penalties on the Workman, depriving him of one increment and back wages simultaneously. The High Court...

Individuals Involved In Manual Work Are Considered Workmen Under ID Act, In Absence Of Direct Oversight Over Subordinates In Supervisory Role: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice Amit Borkar held that employees predominantly engaged in manual, skilled, and unskilled work, in absence of sufficient evidence of direct oversight of subordinate employees, qualify as 'workmen' under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. Brief Facts: The Management, an engineering company, was involved in manufacturing various products,...

Industrial Disputes Act Time Consumed In Proceedings At Forum Lacking Jurisdiction Is Excluded From Limitation Period: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma held that if an applicant has diligently pursued a matter before a wrong forum and time was consumed in doing so, this time should be excluded from the limitation period before the forum with appropriate jurisdiction. The bench noted that the Workman could only approach the Industrial Tribunal after the expiry of...

Reinstatement With Continuity of Service And Back Wages Is General Rule, Relief May Be Enhanced Considering Nature Of Misconduct By Management: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court division bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that in cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the general rule. The relief granted to the workmen might be enhanced if other wrongful conduct on the part of the Management is found. The High Court found that the Workman, employed as...

Discontinuation Of Establishment's Work Charge Status Does Not Disentitle Workmen From Attaining Work Charge Status: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel differentiated between the work charge status of an establishment and the work charge status of workmen. It held that the cessation of the establishment's work charge status does not negate the workman's right to conferment of work charge status upon completing the requisite service period. Work charge...

Appeal Under Section 30 Of Employees Compensation Act Must Involve Substantial Question Of Law: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma held that Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, which provides for appeals against orders of compensation and other related matters, can only be exercised when the appeal involves a substantial question of law. The bench noted that the determination of the employer-employee relationship between the Management...

Industrial Disputes Act Is Beneficial Legislation; Strict Timelines Under Commercial Courts Act Or CPC Ought Not To Apply: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee partially upheld the order of an Industrial Tribunal to allow a Worklady to submit additional documents along with her affidavit of evidence. The bench held that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a beneficial legislation where the strict timelines under the Commercial Courts Act or the CPC ought...

Failure Of Management To Prove Credibility Of Resignation Letter, Termination Of Illiterate Worklady Declared Invalid: Punjab And Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court single bench of Justice Sanjay Vashisth declared the termination of an illiterate work lady violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, based on the Management's failure to verify the handwriting on the resignation letter. Since the management failed to present any witnesses to support the authenticity of the resignation...

Company Must Be Necessary Party For Its Offenses Under Minimum Wages Act, Directors Can't Be Sued Separately For Vicariously Liability: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty held that a company must be accused as a necessary party for its offences under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Persons acting on its behalf, including directors, cannot be criminally prosecuted if the company itself is not named as an accused party. Brief Facts: Mr Padpara Patti and Mr...

Implementation Of Pay Scales Involves Executive Discretion, Courts Can't Intervene Unless There Is Illegality Or Glaring Irregularity: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that implementation of revised pay scales involves executive discretion and courts do not have the authority to intervene unless there is evidence of illegality or a glaring irregularity. The case involved allegations against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for failure to implement an enhanced pay scale for...

Service As Work Charge Later Regularized Can Be Considered For Qualifying Service For Pension, Not For Computation Of Pension: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that services rendered by an employee as a daily wager cannot be taken as qualifying service for pension/ calculating pension amount. It has been held that when employee was rendering services as work charge and was later regularized, period served as work charge must be counted for qualifying services for pension. The bench comprising of...

Dismissal Of Workman During Pendency Of Industrial Dispute Without Tribunal's Approval Is Void, Karnataka High Court Orders Reinstatement Of Workman

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...