Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti’s Illustrious Career and Notable Judgments
Justice Bhatti served as Chief Justice of Kerala High Court for 1 month before being elevated to the Supreme Court on 14 July 2023.
industrial dispute
Restrictions under S. 22, ID Act applicable to bank employees; Strike call by trade union can trigger conciliation proceedings: Kerala HC
“Section 22(1), ID Act will apply squarely to the Trade Union and there is no basis for the inference that managerial or supervisory employees of higher ranks or cadres are excluded from the ID Act. The restrictions imposed under Section 22, ID Act are designed to protect the interests of the public and ensure the smooth operation of a Public Utility Service.”
Apprehended Industrial Dispute justifies Reference; Prior Demand Not Mandatory: Supreme Court
The Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 cannot be quashed merely because no prior demand was served on the employer.
Workman appearing through advocate constitutes deemed consent for employer’s legal representation: Jharkhand High Court
“The complete embargo on the appearance of Advocates in Industrial adjudication is confined to conciliation proceedings alone.”
Cases Reported in HCC | Latest High Court Cases on Service and Labour Laws
Explore the latest Cases reported in SCC’s High Court Cases (HCC)Volume on Industrial Dispute, Transfer of Employees, Departmental Enquiry, Compulsory Retirement and much more.
CASES REPORTED IN HCC | Case Laws on Unfair Labour Practice; Setting Aside Foreign Award; Validity of Will; GST Cancellation; and more
An update on new additions of case laws to SCC’s High Court Cases volume.
Central Council of Homeopathy is ‘Industry’ as per Industrial Dispute Act: Delhi HC upholds reinstatement of compulsorily retired workman
The Delhi High Court said that Section 33-A is a special provision which aims to adjudicate as to whether conditions of a service, etc. have been changed during the pendency of proceedings before an Industrial Tribunal.
Bombay High Court upholds Cadbury’s termination decision for not being ‘employee’ under MRTU and PULP Act
Both Labour as well as Industrial Court have concurrently held that apart from performing supervisory nature of duties, the petitioner did not himself perform any manual, skilled, unskilled or clerical work.
Bombay High Court| Tata Memorial Hospital classified as an autonomous body under Central Government Control
Tata Memorial Hospital and Indian Cancer Research Centre were amalgamated into an institution named as Tata Memorial Centre, which was registered as a Society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and also as a public trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.
Supreme Court upholds regularisation of workmen engaged in regular and perennial nature of work
Supreme Court found the Industrial Tribunal justified in giving an award on a reference by the Central Government, and the Tribunal’s findings as unassailable.
‘Hospital deemed an ‘Industry’ under Industrial Disputes Act’; Delhi High Court affirms Rights of a ‘Workman’ in Hospital Dispute
Delhi High Court upholds Labour Court’s finding, affirming Hospital as an Industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 validating State Government’s referral authority, and confirming the continuous service of the workman.
Arbitration as a Method of Adjudication of Industrial Disputes: An Analysis
by Amrut Anil Joshi† and Anand Ratnakar Pai††
Calcutta High Court affirms Director’s liability under Section 32 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; directs compliance of compensation order
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 “is a beneficial legislation, for the benefit of the workmen and not paying the compensation since 2007 is clearly an abuse of the process of law.”
Delhi High Court enhances compensation from Rs 50,000 to Rs. 1,50,000 for illegal termination of ‘workman’
Delhi High Court observed that Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. R. Rajappa, 1978 (3) SCR 207 acts as a North star for the courts to reach the conclusion regarding the applicability of the Industrial Dispute Act to an organization by laying down elaborate guidelines with respect to the definition of ‘industry’ under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
Bombay High Court dismisses petition by Air India Employees Union alleging their ‘right to occupy’ allotted accommodations after privatization
Bombay High Court observed that if such a small number of employees continue to hold on to the accommodations, the AIAHCL will not be able to monetize the land to reduce the burden of debt AIL put on it.
“An Award of the Labour Court without any fundamental flaws, does not invite a High Court’s interference”; Gujarat HC dismisses petitions by employees of Indian Petrochemicals Corporation regarding the company’s Voluntary Retirement Schemes
Gujarat High Court: The instant petitions came up before the Court challenging the Award of the Labour Court, Vadodara, whereby which it
Gujarat High Court | Municipality has power to retire a municipal servant at any time on or after he attains the age of 55 years on giving him three months notice
Gujarat High Court: Biren Vaishnav, J. allowed petitions which were filed challenging the awards of the Labour Court ordering reinstatement
Ori HC | It is not mandatory for Central Government to make a reference of a dispute which is of national importance to a National Tribunal in view of S. 7-B r/w S 10 (1-A) ID Act
Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of S. Muralidhar, CJ and R.K. Pattanaik J. dismissed the petition and upheld the judgment by
[ID Act] Kar HC | Labour Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workmen’s entitlement and then proceed to compute the benefit so adjudicated; Labour Court’s power like that of the Executing Court’s power
Karnataka High Court: K.S. Mudagal, J., allowed the petition and set aside the impugned award awarding compensation as well as the silver
Does the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 eclipse the Industrial Disputes (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1958? SC refuses to decide the issue as the first Court
Supreme Court: In the case where it was argued before the Court that the Industrial Disputes (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1958 which received