Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
NLC Tamilnadu Power Limited, Represented by its Chief Executive Officer – Appellant
Versus
Tamilnadu Min Uzhiyar Mathiya Amaippu, Represented by its Secretary – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the impugned award. (Para 1) |
| 2. management's perspective on wage parity. (Para 2) |
| 3. workmen's claims and supporting arguments. (Para 3) |
| 4. submissions from both parties. (Para 4) |
| 5. core questions posed for consideration. (Para 5) |
| 6. trade union's maintainability. (Para 6) |
| 7. presence of contractors as necessary parties. (Para 7) |
| 8. authority's powers under relevant rules. (Para 8) |
| 9. principles of natural justice in the inquiry. (Para 9) |
| 10. appropriateness of benefits granted based on comparison. (Para 10) |
| 11. court's dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 11) |
ORDER :
(D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.)
A.The Writ Petition:
This writ petition challenges the impugned award issued by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), who is the authority under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on 30.04.2021. It seeks to quash the award concerning the directions provided in paragraph No. 12 (ii) to (vii) and to assert that the consequent findings in the award are illegal, contrary, and in complete derogation of the provisions of the Act and the rules established thereunder, and for further orders. In the challe
The authority rightly ensured wage parity for contract workers under comparable conditions; contract labourers deserve equal pay for similar work, reflecting principles of fair treatment.
The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner has jurisdiction to determine wage parity for contract workers performing similar work as regular employees under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the CL (R & A) Central Rules....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory right conferred by Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the 1971 Rules, which guarantees parity in wages and benefits to contract labours engaged with....
The Industrial Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring a contract as sham without a prohibition notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act, which is necessary for such a determination.
it is difficult to extend minimum time scale to the petitioners as they were not engaged by respondent Nos. 4 to 11 either on contract basis or outsourcing basis.
A judgment contrary to the evidence or without evidence is perverse. Concession of counsel on such facts and law does not bind the party.Master-servant relationship.
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
