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]

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT 1947 - Sec. 17B

COMPLIANCE OF SEC 17B

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]

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES:

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]