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

2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 16116

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI
Larsen AND Toubro Ltd – Appellant
Versus
The Presiding Officer – Respondent


COMMON ORDER

These petitions are filed by the petitioner - management seeking to quash the awards respectively (i) dated 24.10.2017 in I.D.(T) No.28 of 2012; and (ii) dated 24.4.2017 in I.D.(T) No.7 of 2013, both on the file of the first respondent.

2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in both Writ Petitions st hereinafter will be referred to as “Management”, the respective 1 nd respondent will be referred to as “Labour Court” and the respective 2 respondents will be referred to as “Respondent Union”.

3. The facts leading to filing of these cases are as follows :

(i) The respective second respondent were registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926. Every year before Diwali festival, the petitioner management used to pay one time lump sum amount in addition to payment of bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act without any reference to profit or loss. For the years from 2006-07, the respective second respondent demanded for one time lump sum amount and after negotiation, the petitioner management agreed to increase a sum of Rs.1,500/- from 2005- 06. Further, till 2009-10, the petitioner management gave increased reasonable one time lump sum amount.

(ii) The respective second respond

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