SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1965 Supreme(All) 178

D.D.SETH
KESHAV PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
LABOUR COURT – Respondent



D. D. SETH, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of the following circumstances.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is an employee of the New Victoria Mills Company, Ltd. , Kanpur, opposite party 2 to the petition, as a line jobber. The nature of his duty is to supervise the work of weavers working on looms which is known as one line and that is why the name of line jobber is given to a person who supervises the work done on the line. The petitioner is paid wages which is calculated on the average production given by the weavers and the looms of the line. It is stated in Para. 4 of the petition that if the production is 66 per cent or above in case of four looms set and 72 per cent or above in case of two looms set, the weavers and the line jobbers are paid efficiency reward which is also known as production bonus. According to the petitioner the efficiency reward is paid in terms of an agreement arrived at between the representatives of the workmen and the petitioner-concern and has been regularly paid as part of their wages. Line jobbers also are paid efficiency reward even though they were not actually working in the mills as the payment depends upon the pro






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top