Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1984)1MLJ218
..... (2) whether the petitioner is a 'protected workman' as contemplated under section 33 (3) of the industrial disputes act, 1947.4. ..... on the first issue, though the tribunal prima facie agreed with the management that the transfer of the petitioner from madras to ahmedabad would not amount to an alteration of conditions of service applicable to him, proceeded to hold that as the order of transfer has been made by the management without taking into account the hardship that may be caused to him by such transfer, the service conditions applicable to the appellant should be deemed to have been altered to his prejudice, and therefore, the action taken by the management will come either under section 33 (2) (a) or under section 33 (3) (a) of the industrial disputes act. ..... according to the appellant, he is a 'protected workman' and that before the management transferred him from madras to ahmedabad which is an order to his prejudice, it should have obtained the prior sanction of the tribunal as required by section 33 (3) (a) of the act, and as it was not done there is a contravention of section 33 (3) (a) and that even if the appellant is not a 'protected workman' as contended by the management, the order of transfer which is a mala fide action taken by the management to victimise the appellant for his union activities, should be taken to be an order passed in contravention of section 33 (2) of the act.9. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1999(82)FLR115]; (1999)IIILLJ1011Bom
..... for this reason, the first respondent contended that he was an 'employee' within the meaning of section 3(5) of the act read with section 2(s) of the industrial disputes act, 1947 and, therefore, entitled to protection under labour laws. ..... having arrived at the conclusion that on and from april 1, 1991 the first respondent was not a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the industrial disputes act, 1947 read with section 3(5) of the act, was the labour court justified in directing reinstatement on the basis that, at some point in his career albeit a couple of months prior to the date of his termination of his service, the first respondent was a 'workman'. ..... with the help of the learned counsel, i perused the complaint and i find that it is not contended that the cause of action for the complaint was the promotion effected with effect from april 1, 1991. ..... ganguli was, therefore, constrained to contend that the cause of action was the termination of service with effect from september 2, 1991, but that it included within its ambit what had been done earlier by the employer as a necessary prelude. ..... he alleged that the action of abrupt termination of his service was mala fide and taken as retaliation for a complaint made by him about rifling of his table drawer and taking away of his personal belongings therefrom, including cash amount of rs. ..... ganguli as to what was the cause of action pleaded in the compliant. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC5009; JT2004(8)SC272; 2004(3)KLT686(SC); (2005)ILLJ117SC; 2004(8)SCALE475; (2004)8SCC402; (2005)1UPLBEC175
..... . the gujarat high court has taken the view that as a result of non-registration of contract of apprenticeship an incumbent shall not be deemed to be a trainee and he would be covered by the definition of 'workman' under section 2(s) of the industrial disputes act, 1947 and he will get the protection of section 25f of the said act ..... . he completed three years training and after end of the training he was relieved as per the terms and conditions of the appointment as an apprentice in designated trade of boiler attendant and therefore he cannot be declared to be a worker under the act he cannot claim the benefit of section 25f of the industrial disputes act, 1947 or under section 6n of the u.p ..... . but the expression appearing in section 2 (z) of the u.p industrial disputes act and industrial disputes act 1947 are not applicable to the apprentices appointed under the apprentices act, 1961 ..... . the respondent no.2 was thus not a workman and no dispute could be referred to the labour court and the period of his training having come to an end, the action of the petitioner employer in not engaging him any further was in accordance with the contract entered into between the parties and the provisions of the act.'60 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2004)ILLJ307Cal
..... section 33(3) of the industrial disputes act, 1947, prohibits the employer from taking any action against any protected workman during the pendency of any proceeding. ..... if the concerned trade union complies with the provision of sub-rule (1) of rule 71 then, under sub-rule (2) employer is duty bound to recognise the workmen whose names have been forwarded by the concerned union under sub-rule (1) to be protected workmen unless the total number of such office bearers forwarded by the concerned union exceeds the maximum number of protected workmen admissible for the establishment under section 33(4) of the industrial disputes act.18. ..... (5) where an employer makes an application to a conciliation officer, board, [an arbitrator], a labour court or national tribunal under the proviso to sub-section (2) for approval of the action taken by him, the authority concerned shall, without delay, hear such application and pass [within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such application], such order in relation thereto as it deems fit: [provided that where any such authority considers it necessary or expedient so to do, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1986(1)WLN521
..... both of them, are protected workmen under section 33(4) of the industrial disputes act, 1947(for short, 'the act'). ..... the tribunal is not required to consider the propriety or adequacy of the punishment or whether it is excessive or too servere yet an interference of malafides may in certain cases be drawn from the imposition of unduly harsh, severe, unconscionable or shockingly disproportionate punishment; (iv) whether the employer has paid or offered to pay wages for one month to the employee and (v) whether the employer has simultaneously or within such reasonable short time as to form part of the same transaction applied to the authority before which the main industrial dispute is pending for approval of the action taken ..... we, therefore, agree with learned single judge that it cannot be said that persons of the same class have been differently treatedand that the action taken by the management was violative of article 14 of the constitution.16. ..... which the appellants are the office bearers) who took part in the demonstration and raised slogans along with the appellants in the prohibited/protected area were left out with no action and the appellants alone were chosen and picked up for punitive action. ..... some workmen belonging to the raku (of which the appellants are the office - bearers), who took part in the demonstration and raised slogans along with the appellants in the prohibited/protected area, were left out and the appellants were alone chosen and picked-up for punitive action. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1995(71)FLR586]; (1995)IILLJ204Raj; 1994(2)WLN1
..... we therefore, find nothing wrong in the view taken by the leaned single judge that the termination of the appellant's service was by way of punishment taking it out of the definition of 'retrenchment' under section 2(oo) of the industrial disputes act, 1947.12. ..... it was therefore contended that any action under rule-iv of the standing orders of 1965 could not be taken as punitive and consequently termination of services under clause 26(8) of the standing orders would amount to simple discharge and would not be a punishment.8. ..... language of clause 26(8) of the standing orders clearly shows that the action under clause 26(8) can be taken only as a punishment for absence of an employee without proper orders of the general manager or the competent authority authorised in this behalf for ten days or more. ..... we also do not agree that all punishments under the standing orders can be imposed only under clause 36 thereof, and action under no other clause of the standing orders could be said to be punitive. ..... the corporation, therefore, proceeded to take action under clause 26(8) of the rajasthan state road transport workers & workshop employees standing orders, 1965 (for short 'the standing orders of 1965' hereinafter), applicable to the employees of the corporation.3. ..... on a plain reading of the provisions, it is clear that it provides for punitive action and not for simple discharge. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC985; [1968(17)FLR153]; 1968LabIC1223; (1969)ILLJ513SC; [1968]3SCR91
..... anything contained in sub-section (2), no employer shall, during the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, take any action against any protected workman concerned in such dispute - (a) by altering to the prejudice of such protected workman, the conditions of service applicable to him immediately before the commencement of such proceedings; or (b) by discharging or punishing, whether by dismissal or otherwise, such protected workman, save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending. ..... cases though the employer can take any of the actions mentioned in that provision in accordance with the standing orders or where there are no such standing orders, in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether express or implied, between him and the workman, on his own authority, he must, in the case of discharging or punishing whether by dismissal or otherwise, a workman, pay him wages for one month and must also make an application to the authority before which the industrial dispute is pending for approval of the action taken by him. ..... of the industrial disputes act, 1947. ..... the course of the judgment this court observed :'the question before us is not whether we have the power; undoubtedly, we have the power, but the questions is whether in the circumstances under present consideration, it is a proper exercise of discretion to allow the appellant to have resort to the power of this court under .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)1MLJ270; 2007(5)CTC392
..... section 8 gives protection of action taken under the act in good faith by stipulating that no suit or other legal proceedings would lie against the government or damage caused or likely to be caused by virtue of action taken under the act. ..... the definition of 'industry' under section 2(e) has been bodily lifted from section 2(j) of the industrial disputes act, 1947. ..... similarly, the definition of 'wages' under section 2(h) has been bodily lifted from 2(rr) of the industrial disputes act, 1947. ..... as stated earlier, there is no specific provision, unlike the provisions contained in the industrial disputes act 1947 or the factories act, or the contract of labour (regulation and abolition) act or the workmen compensation act, or act 43 of 1981 providing for payment of subsistence allowance, which deals exclusively with the manner in which the service conditions of the workmen in an industry or to regulate workforce employed on contract basis or the payment of compensation in the event of employee sustaining injury as also the payment of subsistence allowance in the event of suspension of an employee pending disciplinary proceedings. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2004)ILLJ294Mad
..... on the complaint filed by the petitioner under section 33-a of the industrial disputes act, 1947, the industrial tribunal held that the worker was bound to opt for either of the two options viz. ..... therefore the law as declared by the supreme court as on date, is that there can be no valid order of dismissal for discharging an employee from service if there was no approval as required under section 33(2)(b) of the industrial disputes act, 1947. 6. ..... i am inclined to hold that the petitioner is entitled to succeed on one particular issue, namely management did not obtain approval from the competent authority as required under section 33(2)(b) of the industrial disputes act, 1947. ..... it is also admitted that the management did not obtain approval as required under the provisions of the industrial disputes act, 1947.4. ..... if it is so done, he will be happier or more comfortable than an employer who obeys the command of law and makes an application inviting security of the authority in the matter of granting approval of the action taken by him, adherence to and obedience of law should be obvious and necessary in a system governed by rule of law. ..... such an approach destroys the protection specifically and expressly given to an employee under the said proviso as against possible victimization, unfair labour practice or harassment because of pendency of industrial dispute so that an employee can be saved from hardship of unemployment.'5. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008BusLR1013(Del)
..... the union of the workmen, therefore, sought initiation of action against the petitioner management for violation of section 33(1)(a) of the i.d act, 1947 under section 33a(b) of the industrial disputes act, 1947.7. ..... on the one hand, they are designed to protect the workmen concerned during the course of industrial conciliation, arbitration and adjudication, against employer's harassment and victimization, on account of their having raised the industrial dispute or their continuing the 'pending proceedings', on the other, they seek to maintain status quo by prescribing management conduct which may give rise to fresh disputes which further exacerbate the already strained relations between the employer and the workmen.17. ..... and the workman],-(a) alter, in regard to any matter not connected with the dispute, the conditions or service applicable to that workman immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; or(b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, that workman:provided that no such workman shall be discharged or dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the .....
Tag this Judgment!