Monday, April 1, 2013

Maternity Benefit Act 1961

Section 5(2) -Maternity benefits -maternity leave - denied to petitioner, a casual labourer - not allowed her to join service - claim of petitioner for reinstatement rejected by respondent - on ground that beak in service was more than 90 days - she was unjustly denied maternity leave and employment - action of respondents are totally illegal and violate Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution fo India - Petitioner was appointed on 30-05-1988, as such as per GOM no. 19, she is also entitled and justified in seeking regularisation, as all other were regularised - hence respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service and regularise her services. Madras High Court dated 20-12-2011 in WP no. 3603 of 2007 between L. Kannaki and Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Chennai and Others. [2012(133) FLR 48]



Sec 17B - Reinstatement with back wages till 5-5-92 - Leagality of - Award challenged, makes obligatory for the employer to pay the workman during the pendency of proceedings in the High Court or Supreme Court full wages last drawn by the workman - scope of section 17-B of the Act - Very clear- Leaves no discretion with the superior Court to give relief to the successful workman of not to give - Relief can be denied only if the employer shows that the workman was gainfully employed in some industrial establishment - Management directed to pay the workman his last drawn wages or the minimum wages fixed from time to time, whichever is higher from the date of passing the impugned award till pendency of the writ petition subject to undertaking. Delhi High Court dated 19-09-2012  in CM no. 17172 of 2006 : Mysore Lamps Works Ltd V/s Girish Kumar Jain [2012(135) FLR 1011]


Rule of contetemporanea expositio- Established rule of interpretation - Words used in a statutory provisions - Must be understood in the same way in which they are usually understood in ordinary parlance with respect to area in which  said law is in force. Proviso provides exception - Purpose is to exclude something which otherwise would fall within the general language of the main enactment. Hardships of an individual - cannot be used as the basis to alter the meaning of the language employed by the legislature. Addition of subtraction of words - Not permissible - Court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not part of it - Not permissible for the Court to twist the clear language of the enactment in order to avoid any real or imaginary hardships. Civil Appeal No. 2133-34 of 2004 Rohit Kumar and others V/s Om Prakash Sharma and Others Supreme Court Dated 06-11-2012 [2013(136)FLR 92]

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Minimum Wages Act 1948

Minimum Wages Act 1948 - Evidence Act not applicable:Evidence Act 1872 - admittedly the provisions of Evidence Act not applicable - For proceedings before Prescribed Authority under the Act 1948. - Fact that employment of workmen was part time employment not proved by employer - Findings recorded in favour of Workmen therefore cannot be interefered.
Minimum Wages Act 1948 - Applicability on Hospitals:
Minimum Wages Act 1948 - Section 1, 2(e) and 3 -Notification dated 19-12-1993, 02-04-1992, 12-10-1992 - Applicability of Act - In view of subsequent notification dated 12-10-1992, Hospitals are coveredby the 1948 Act - Petitioner Hospital cannot be absolved of it's applicability under Provisions of Act.
[2011 (130) FLR 874] Allahabad High Court. Civil Misc Writ Peitition no. 23970 of 2008 dated 19 May 2011, Public Welfare Hospital, Varanasi v/s State of U.P. through Chief Secretary.

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Workmen's Compensation Act 1923

Loss of One eye of Driver- 100% Claim
Workmen's Compensation Act 1923- Section 2(1)(b), Schedule 1, Item 4 - Compensation - Loss of Vision - of Driver of Transport Vehicle - In one eye - Should be considered and treated as permanent total disablement - Loss of earning capacity is 100%. [2011 (130) FLR 113] Keral High Court in MFA no. 60 of 2006 dated 08-03-2011 : New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s Santhosh.

Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act 1996

Construction Workers's Welfare Cess ACt 1996 - Sections 11, 9, and 5, Constiution of Inda, 1950 - Art 226 - Alternative remedy - Petitioners is impugning the imposition of cess under the Act and consequent recovery proceedings on various grounds. - Thus the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing appeal before appellate authrity- Hence, the petition is dismissed on ground of availability of alternative remedy. [2011(130)FLR 12] Writ petition no. 22161 of 2011 between Tanks and Tube Wells Class A Category Contractor v/s Collector/District Magistrate, Allahabad in Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 18-04-2011

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Minimum Wages in Uttar Pradesh

Minimum Wages in 58 Employments
Minimum Wages for worker in the state of Uttar Pradesh with effect from 01 April 2011 to 30 September 2011 are as following. for unskilled workers basic wages are Rs. 2600.00, for semi skilled workers basic wages are 2964.00 and for skilled workers basic wages are 3290.00 per month. Variable dearness allowance for unskilled Rs. 1563.98, for semi skilled workers - 1782.94 and for skilled workers - 1979.04. In this way total monthly wages for unskilled worker are Rs. 4163.98, for semi skilled workers are 4746.94 and for skilled workers are 5269.04. Thus one days wages for unskilled workers are 160.15, for semi skilled workers are 182.57 and for skilled workers are 202.66.