Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Jharkhand Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board – Appellant
Versus
Anvil Cables Private Limited – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This Court has heard Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The emphasis of argument is that the Board is having locus on the ground that the money which has taken by JUVNL, establishment by way of one per cent labour cess, has been transmitted in the account of Board for the purpose of welfare of labourers.
3. It has been contended that the said amount has been spent for welfare measure of the Labourers and as such, the same cannot be refunded, since, the amount has been spent.
4. The argument has been advanced on the principle of unjust enrichment.
5. This Court, after hearing the aforesaid argument, is of the view that:-
(i) The appellant is required to establish the locus to be of a necessary party merely because the amount has been transmitted in the account of Board. According to the Board, which has been spent for welfare of the labourers.
(ii) Whether the amount, if any, transmitted in the account of the Board, which has been deducted by the establishment, JUVNL without any authority, as per the proposition laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Limited & Anr. Vrs. CG Power and Industrial Solutions Limited &
The court evaluates the involvement of the welfare board in legal proceedings concerning unjust enrichment, clarifying the necessity of establishing locus in absence of a direct contractual relations....
The Labour Cess cannot be deducted from supply contracts under the Cess Act, as established by statutory provisions and relevant case law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the labour cess is not leviable on the supply of materials and consultancy charges under the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare ....
The court affirmed that the Jharkhand Industrial Policy 2012 applies retrospectively, allowing for a reduced transfer fee for M.S.M.E. units, and clarified that the date of the partnership agreement ....
Point of law: Labour Law – arrears of pay – Court need not advert to the submissions made on behalf of the management as the same would tantamount to adjudication of the controversy on merits.
The authority's order under Section 33-C(1) was valid as the employer failed to dispute the existence of a relevant settlement, maintaining wage parity between contractual and regular employees in li....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that workmen cannot retain the benefit if they want to prosecute claim petitions instituted by them with the Labour Court, and a balancing and prag....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court cannot entertain claim petitions and adjudicate the merits and demerits of the rights of the workman under Section 33(C)(2) o....
Claiming wages - It is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part th....
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
