Industrial Disputes Act 1947

Seasonal Workers:

Section 25-A, 25-B(2) read with setions 2(oo)(bb) and 25-F - where a workman has been employed for a seasonal work or for tremporary period, he cannot be said to have been retrenched in view of section 2(oo)(bb). Whether the owrk in a particular industry is of a seasonal nature, the decision of the appropriate government is final. In facts of instant case, the appellant has nto brought any evidence to this effict of record. Hence, no interference is warranted with the finding that the work in appellant industry was nto of a seasonal nature. Further no interference warranted with the finding that the respondent had worked for 240 days in the preceeding calandar year, as it was for the employer, who werer in possession of all relevant records, to show to the contrary by the producing the relevant record in evidence. Lastly, the delay in making of the reference was due to the time concerned in conciliation proceedings, for which the respondents could not be blamed. Not interference is warranted in the judgment impugned. Appeal is dismissed. - S.C. dated 09-11-2009 in civil appeal no. 7463 of 2009 between Director Fisheries Terminal Division v/s Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda. {2009(123)FLR (S.C.)(875)}

Change in Service Conditions:

Section 9-A, 33, 33-A and 25-F - complaint under setion 33-A - Breach of Section 33 - Daily rated labourers - engaged by employer for various activities relating to agriculture research farms, fisheries, dairies, veternary and other allied sciences - Daily rated labourers felt aggrieved by chang of their service conditions during pendency of reference without following procedure and filed separate complaint under Section 33-A alleging breach of section 33 - Through they do not hold any post but have condidions of service. - Settlement dated 22-8-80 provides conditions when they shall be treated as permanent and hours of work per day. Thus the provisions in the settlement is nothing but conditions of service of the concern workmen- NO new settlement entered not any award has replaced this settlement. Hence the settlement continues to regulate the conditions of service. Therfore, these daily rated labourers were continue to be given only one day off in a week untill the change was effected vide circular dated 3-10-91. and Industrial Court and High Court not erred in relying upon the settlement. There is change in conditions of service. S.C. dated 31-7-09 in civil appeal no. 7358 of 2000 : Gujarat Agriculture University V. All Gujarat Kamdar Karmachari Union. {2009(123)FLR377}

Delay in Reference: Dismissal without Enquiry:-

Industrial Disputes Act 1947- Section 10(1) and 11-A - Dismissal from service- for misconduct - Reference rejected - Second reference by Appropriate Government is valid - Impugned order of dismissal from service passed without enquiry - and impugned order of dismissal not duly served to petitioner - it is not a termination of his employment - Hence, his explanation for delay of 12 years in raising dispute has to be accepted - There was no charge of abusing by petitioner in charge sheet and there was no imediate report of threat to highter authorities - Impugned order set aside- Punishment of warning imposed - He shall be reinstated with 50% of back wages. Bombay High Court- Nagpur Bench dated 09-09-2009 in writ petition no. 3618 of 2008 Santosh Kumar V/s Sub Area Manager M/s Western Coalfields Ltd. {2010(124)FLR 223}

Second Reference:-

Industrial Disputes Act 1947- Section 11- Civil Procedure Code, 1908- Order XXIII Rule 1- Dispute - raised, reference made but withdrew the same- A fresh reference for adjudication of order of termination not barred in laws. Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 28-8-2009 in WP no. 11909 of 2000 Bhim Sen Sharma V/s Presiding Officer Labour Court Patiala. {2010(124)FLR281}