Supreme Court Annual Digest 2022- Labour Law

Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 - Appeal against High Court order which directed that the interest @ 12% p.a. shall become payable from the period after expiry of one month from the date of the Commissioner's order - Allowed - While directing the employer to pay the interest from the date of the order passed by the Commissioner, the High Court has not at all considered Section 4A(3)(a) and has considered Section 4A(3)(b) only, which is the penalty provision - Claimants shall be entitled to the interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of compensation as awarded by the Commissioner from the date of the incident. Shobha v. Chairman, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 271 : AIR 2022 SC 1410

Employees Compensation Act, 1923 - In the absence of any clear demarcation of duties of a Helper or a Cleaner and in view of the fact that Helper and Cleaner are interchangeably used, therefore, declining claim for the reason that deceased was engaged as a helper and not Cleaner is wholly unjustified. (Para 8) Mangilal Vishnoi v. National Insurance, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 56

Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 - The liability to pay the compensation would arise from the date on which the deceased died for which he is entitled to the compensation and therefore, the liability to pay the interest on the amount of arrears/compensation shall be from the date of accident and not from the date of the order passed by the Commissioner. (Para 4.1) Shobha v. Chairman, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 271 : AIR 2022 SC 1410

Employees Pension Amendment Scheme - The amendment was made in exercise of power otherwise vested in the authority making such amendment and the amendments were made on the basis of certain relevant materials and not whimsically. (Para 32) Employees Provident Fund Organization v. B. Sunil Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 912 : AIR 2022 SC 5634

Employees Provident Fund Act - Employees Pension Scheme - Supreme Court holds Employees Pension (Amendment) Scheme 2014 as legal and valid- Extends cut-off date to exercise option by four months- Holds condition for additional contribution by employees as ultra vires the EPF Act. Employees Provident Fund Organization v. B. Sunil Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 912 : AIR 2022 SC 5634

Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Section 14B - Any default or delay in the payment of EPF contribution by the employer under the Act is a sine qua non for imposition of levy of damages under Section 14B - Mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing penalty/damages for breach of civil obligations/liabilities. (Para 17) Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal Coorg v. Regional Provident Fund Organization, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 202 : (2022) 4 SCC 516

Employee State Insurance Act, 1948; Section 2(22) - "Conveyance allowance" is equivalent to the traveling allowance and therefore any conveyance allowance/traveling allowance is excluded from the definition of "wages". Talema Electronic v. ESI Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 422

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 - Board of Control for Cricket in India [BCCI] can be said to be a "shop" for the purposes of attracting the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act - The activities of the BCCI can be said to be systematic commercial activities providing entertainment by selling tickets etc. (Para 9-12) Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Regional Director Employees' State Insurance Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 725

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948; Section 39(5)(a) - Neither the Authority nor the Court have any authority to either waive the interest and/or reduce the interest and/or the period during which the interest is payable - The interest leviable/payable is a statutory liability to pay the interest -The liability to pay the interest is from the date on which such contribution has become due and till the date of its actual payment. Regional Director / Recovery Officer v. Nitinbhai Vallabhai Panchasara, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 983

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948; Section 45-AA - Once the statute has fixed the condition of pre-deposit before filing an appeal, such condition is required to be satisfied - Giving appellate authority a discretion to waive of the amount determined, is clearly not sustainable. (Para 8) Employees State Insurance Health Care v. Maruti Suzuki, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Appeal against Karnataka High Court judgment which held that an employer must give proper opportunity of hearing to the workmen before deducting their wages for "go slow" approach by which they had failed to produce the agreed output - Disposed - The impugned judgment protects the interest of the appellant and the workmen by prescribing the right procedure which should be followed in case the appellant is of the opinion that the workmen, though present on duty, are not working and are not giving the agreed production on the basis of which wages and incentives have been fixed. Bata India Ltd. vs. Workmen of Bata India Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 325 : (2022) 6 SCC 95

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Industrial Tribunal - If irregularity or illegality committed by a Tribunal touches upon the jurisdiction to try and determine over a subject dispute is altogether beyond its purview, that question would go to the root of the matter and it would be within the jurisdiction of the superior court to correct such error. (Para 15) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. President, Oil Field Employees Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176 : 2022 (2) SCALE 861

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Industrial Tribunal - The Tribunal could not go beyond the disputes that were referred to it - The scope of jurisdiction of the Industrial Court is wide and in appropriate cases it has the jurisdiction even to make a contract. (Para 14, 25) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. President, Oil Field Employees Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176 : 2022 (2) SCALE 861

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Jurisdiction of civil court not ousted when the matter relates to correction of date of birth - Jurisdiction of the civil court is not ousted, as this is not a case relating to enforcement of a right or an obligation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Tulshi Choudhary v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 668

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Right of minority workmen to raise industrial dispute - A minority union of workers may raise an industrial dispute even if another union which consists of the majority of them enters into a settlement with the employer. (Para 20) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. President, Oil Field Employees Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176 : 2022 (2) SCALE 861

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 18 - Binding nature of a settlement on all persons employed in an establishment discussed. (Para 16 - 17) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. President, Oil Field Employees Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176 : 2022 (2) SCALE 861

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33C(2) - Prior adjudication or recognition of the disputed claim of the workmen, proceedings for computation of the arrears of wages and/or difference of wages claimed by the workmen shall not be maintainable under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. (Para 6) Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 130 : (2022) 5 SCC 629

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33C(2) - The benefit sought to be enforced under Section 33­C (2) of the ID Act is necessarily a pre­existing benefit or one flowing from a pre­existing right. The difference between a pre­existing right or benefit on one hand and the right or benefit, which is considered just and fair on the other hand is vital. The former falls within jurisdiction of Labour Court exercising powers under Section 33­C (2) of the ID Act while the latter does not. (Para 6) Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 130 : (2022) 5 SCC 629

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The principle of limited interference would apply to a proceeding of this nature under the 1947 Act. (Para 25) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. President, Oil Field Employees Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176 : 2022 (2) SCALE 861

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Section 25F - If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the termination of service. (Para 19) Armed Forces Ex Officers Multi Services Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 674 : AIR 2022 SC 3783 : (2022) 9 SCC 586

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Section 25F - Retrenchment - Principle of law that reemployment of retrenched workmen does not entitle them to claim continuity of service - This principle will only apply to cases where the retrenchment is bona fide - When retrenchment is not bona fide and once the orders of retrenchment are set aside, the workmen will naturally be entitled to continuity of service with order of back wages as determined by a Tribunal or a Court of law. (Para 16) Armed Forces Ex Officers Multi Services Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 674 : AIR 2022 SC 3783 : (2022) 9 SCC 586

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Section 25F - Retrenchment - Principle that a policy decision for re-organising the business based on economic considerations is within an enterprise's proprietary decision and retrenchment in this context must be accepted as an inevitable consequence - The material requirement of bona fide of the decision - When the retrenchment seems to have been imposed as retribution against the workmen for going on a strike, this principle will not apply. (Para 15) Armed Forces Ex Officers Multi Services Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 674 : AIR 2022 SC 3783 : (2022) 9 SCC 586

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33C(2) - Not open for the Labour Court to entertain disputed questions and adjudicate upon the employer - employee relationship - In an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim of workmen. It can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based. (Para 6) Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 130 : (2022) 5 SCC 629

Labour Law - An employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages- In the first instance, there is an obligation on the part of the employee to plead that he is not gainfully employed. It is only then that the burden would shift upon the employer to make an assertion and establish the same. [Para 31-33] Allahabad Bank v. Avtar Bhushan Bhartiya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 405 : AIR 2022 SC 3025

Labour Law - Appeal against Madras HC judgment directing payment of backwages to an employee - Dismissed - Employee/writ petitioner cannot be denied the back wages for no fault of his and the principle of "no work no pay" shall not be applicable. Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology & Natural History v. Dr. Mathew K. Sebastian, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 377 : 2022 (6) SCALE 265

Labour Law - Employee is not supposed to prove the negative that he was not gainfully employed during the period he was out of employment- Once he asserts that he is not gainfully employed, thereafter the onus will shift to the employer positively and it would be for the employer to prove that the employee was gainfully employed. (Para 6) Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology & Natural History v. Dr. Mathew K. Sebastian, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 377 : 2022 (6) SCALE 265

Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Once the order of termination was approved by the Industrial Tribunal on appreciation of evidence led before it, thereafter the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal were binding between the parties. No contrary view could have been taken by the Labour Court contrary to the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal. (Para 5.2) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bharat Singh Jhala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 818

Labour Law - Supreme Court directs reinstatement of watchman who was retrenched 20 years ago - Labour Court had directed him to be reinstated in 2010- High Court set aside the direction for reinstatement and modified it as a direction for lumpsum payment of 1 lakh compensation- Supreme Court held that the High Court's interference was unwarranted in the facts of the case - Had the respondent management chosen to accept the verdict, the appellant would have been spared the agony of waiting for more than 10 years. In such circumstances, the denial of backwages, has resulted in punishing him - So apart from reinstatement, the SC directs that the workman be paid backwages of from 2020 to 2022. Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja v. Kuttch District Panchayat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 797

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Allahabad Bank v. Avtar Bhushan Bhartiya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 405 : AIR 2022 SC 3025
2. Armed Forces Ex Officers Multi Services Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 674 : AIR 2022 SC 3783 : (2022) 9 SCC 586
3. Bata India Ltd. vs. Workmen of Bata India Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 325 : (2022) 6 SCC 95
4. Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 130 : (2022) 5 SCC 629
5. Employees Provident Fund Organization v. B. Sunil Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 912 : AIR 2022 SC 5634
6. Employees State Insurance Health Care v. Maruti Suzuki, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 453
7. Horticulture Experiment Station v. Regional Provident Fund Org., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 202 : (2022) 4 SCC 516
8. Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja v. Kuttch District Panchayat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 797 : 2022 (14) SCALE 196
9. Mangilal Vishnoi v. National Insurance Co; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 56
10. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. President, Oil Field Employees Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176 : 2022 (2) SCALE 861
11. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bharat Singh Jhala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 818
12. Regional Director / Recovery Officer v. Nitinbhai Vallabhai Panchasara, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 983
13. Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology & Natural History v. Dr. Mathew K. Sebastian, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 377 : 2022 (6) SCALE 265
14. Selvakumar v. Manjula, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 786 : 2022 (13) SCALE 602
15. Shobha v. Chairman, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 271 : AIR 2022 SC 1410
16. Talema Electronic v. ESI Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 422
17. Tulshi Choudhary v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 668