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.

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

RECOVERY OF CESS - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY

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

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.

Minimum Wages Act, 1948

Minimum Wages Act 1948 - Section 12- Provisions of Act - High Court or the Company Judge - Cannot be expected to pass any orders - So as to flout the provisions of Act. [2011(128)FLR1096] Patna High Court dated 07-04-2010 in Company Appeal No. 1 of 2010 Between Bikramaditya Mishra and Official Liquidator, Rohtas.

Departmental Enquiry

Departmental Enquiry can not be held to unfair on trivial points. It can be held unfair only if there is substantial denial of opportunity to workman- And the workman shows that denial has resulted in prejudice.

[2011(129)FLR594] Allahabad High Court dated 4-3-2011 in Civil Misc. writ petition no. 26807 of 1998 between State Bank of Patiala and Union of India.

Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 - further claim as per increased limit

Payment of Gratuity Act 1972- Section 1(3) 3, 4(3), 5, and 7(4) (a), (b), (c), (d), as amended - Constitution of India 1950 Article 226 - claim of maximum gratuity- gratuity of Rs. 3.5 lacs already received- claims further amount of Rs. 6.5 lakhs- Controlling authority has jurisdiction to examine it- Since an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner- High Court under Article 226 will not interfere- Petitioner can approach the appropriate authority- Petition is dismissed.

Admittedly, the claim of the petitioner is under the Statute. The controlling authority which has been appointed in terms of section 3 of the Act, is responsible for adminstration of the Act. Significantly, in addition to the provision of section 4(3), Section 5 of the Actg also contemplates the right of employees to receive better terms of gratuity from an amployer. I, therefore, do not see how the controlling authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 would lack jurisdiction to examine th dispute. The petitioner has shown me no precedent or authority that might persuade me to hold otherwise.

[2011(129)FLR952] Delhi High Court in Writ petition (Civil) no. 7146 of 2010 date 16-3-2011 in P.S. Gupta V/s Union of India.

Employees' Comensation Act 1923

Death due to quarrel with co- employee:-

Workmen's Compensation Act 1923- Section 3 and 4(1)(c) - Death of diesel assistant - Diesel assistant employed in Northern Raiway had quarrel with another railway employee while on duty- Quarrel resulted in death of diesel assistant - Grant of Compensation to legal heirs- Claim by heirs was maintainable. The submission made by the learned counsel for appelant that the accident in question does not come within the ambit and scope of the provisions provided under Section 3 of the Act, as such the claim petition filed by the claimant is not maintainable, is totally incorrect, wrong submission and rejected. The order passed by WC Commisioner/Assistant Labour Commissioner Lucknow on 07-06-2002 in Case no. 19/1998 upheld. F.A. No. 537 of 2002 : Union of India through General manager Northern Railway and another V/s Ifzal Hussain and another decided on 25-08-2010 by Allahabad High Court. [2011(128)FLR137]

Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 - Forfeiture of Gratuity

Quarter not vacated- can not be forfeited:

Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 - Section 4(6) - Gratuity- Withholding of- Because company quarter not vacated- recovery notice- once controlling authotity passed the order under the Act- It is bounden duty to recover the said amount for which recovery notice are issued - Hence impugned recovery notices cannt be illegal.- amount of gratuity can be forfeited only as provided under Section 4(6) of Act. But the petitioner as never challanged the original order - Hence all petitioner fail and deserve to be dismissed. Special Civil Appeal No. 17105 and 17111 of 2003 : Jehangir Textile Mills V/s Sahebsingh Chotesingh and another, decided on 05-10-2010 by Gujarat High Court. [2011 (128) FLR 180]

Can be forfeited on Dismissal:

Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 Section 4(6) and Rule 18 of Bank PF Rules - Forfeiture of Gratuity- Petitioner, an employee of bank- Dismissed from service- For misconduct of causing loss to bank- In view of Section 4(6) of Act and rule 18 of the Rules, bank has rightly forfeited the amount of gratuity adn deducted the contribution of employer. OOCJ WP no. 636 of 2002 : Ramchandra S. Joshi V/s Bank of Baroda, Decided on 05-04-2010 by Bombay High Court.

Industrial disputes Act 1947 - Delay

Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Section 25F to 25H and 10- reference expression "at any time" in the context it is used - Postulates tgaht reference can only be made if an industrial dispute existgs or is apprehended. Findings recorded by the Labour Court that the appellant completed 240 days in 12 preceding months and termination of his services without complying with provisins of Section 25F - Termination illegal, null and void. But it rejected the claim of the workman on ground of delay in making the reference. No limitation prescribed for making reference under Secion 10- reference sought for by the workman.- Services of the workman terminated on 26-5-1992 and reference made by the Government on 22-11-1999. Once it is found that industrial dispute exists-Incumbent on part of the Government to make reference. SLP(C) no. 4137 of 2007 : Kuldeep Singh V/s G.M Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre decided on 3-12-2010 by Supreme Court [2011(128)FLR121]