Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice M. Dhandapani, J
Chairman-cum-Managing Director Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum-Labour Court Shastri Bhavan, Chennai – Respondent
ORDER :
(M. DHANDAPANI, J.)
Challenging the award passed by the 1st respondent in and by which amount equal to proportionate pay for the extra days of work done by the workmen was directed to be paid by the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. It is the case as evidenced from the chronology of evidence as captured by the trial court that the members of the 2nd respondent Union were employees of the petitioner till 16.08.1991 and, thereafter, their services were transferred to the 3rd respondent and they are working with the 3rd respondent. The working hours of the petitioner was from 0900 to 1730 hours across the country and that the 2nd and last Saturdays were closed holidays along with all Sundays and other notified holidays. In the year 1985, the five day week system was introduced by the Government of India, which was adopted and implemented by the petitioner and all the rules and regulations of the petitioner were followed suit by the 3rd respondent as well. Before following the five day week pattern, the petitioner was following six day week for all its officers, irrespective of the status of the office. Only at the sub-stations, shift duty was followed in or
Discrimination in working conditions between similarly situated employees violates Article 14 of the Constitution, and claims regarding continuing wrongs can be raised despite delays.
A workman must demonstrate that an industrial dispute remains alive despite delays; failure to do so renders the dispute stale and unenforceable.
The court established that individuals classified as supervisors under the Factories Act are not entitled to overtime benefits as defined for workers, impacting their claims for such allowances.
Labour Court has held against the workman on the basis that the documents like pay sleep, muster roll etc. are not produced. But, at this juncture, it is require to peruse the oral evidence of the wo....
The interpretation of 'continuous service' under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act includes all days worked, and any termination without following due process is deemed illegal.
In a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies the workman is bound to prove that he had been in continuous service of 240 days during twelve months preceding the order of termination; in a case whe....
In absence of any evidence produced by the petitioner workman establishing that he had worked under the Respondent continuously for 240 days and, coupled with the fact that the industrial dispute has....
The Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to interpret awards without prior recourse to designated labor tribunals under S.36A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, permits recovery of money only if the entitlement is pre-existing and previously adjudicated; employees must demonstrate a pre-existing right and....
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
