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.