Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S.KULKARNI, AARTI SATHE
Permanent Magnets Limited – Appellant
Versus
Mahipat Yadav – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AARTI SATHE, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the Appellant being aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 19th July 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned order’) passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1828 of 2010 dismissing the Petition filed by the Appellant/Petitioner, thereby upholding the order passed by the Labour Court dated 1st August 2009 which held that the respondent/workman was entitled to the benefit of his wages in adjudicating proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
2. Briefly the facts are as follows:-
i. The Appellant (Org. Petitioner), being the employer, is inter-alia engaged in the manufacture and marketing of industrial magnets. On 20th May 1987, the Respondent joined the employment of the Appellant/Petitioner-Company as a helper in its canteen. There were separate canteens for Supervisors, Executive and Managerial Staff (‘known as managerial canteen’) as well as for visitors (known as ‘Workers’ Canteen’). A separate set of workmen were engaged for these two separate canteens. The service conditions of the workmen working in the managerial canteen were different as they were considered
Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act enforces adjudicated wage claims, without re-examining eligibility; established employer-employee relations must be acknowledged.
Claiming future salary payments under Section 34 is improper while a Section 33C(2) application regarding past dues is pending, as both grievances address the same issue of salary compliance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act, the Industrial Tribunal can adjudicate upon the entitlement of the workman to receive benefit in terms o....
Employees must actively pursue reinstatement post-award; however, employers' refusal to act can diminish employees' obligations to report for work.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Section 33-C(2) and Section 6H(2) in determining the entitlement of workmen to receive enhanced revised wages as per the Wa....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
