Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.41 seconds)The Executive Engineer(State Of ... vs K. Somasetty & Ors on 2 May, 1997
10. The learned State Counsel further reiterates that
the Irrigation Department does not fall within the definition
of "industry". The work performed by the department
relates to core sovereign and statutory duties, and not
commercial activities. The respondent's reliance on certain
judgments is completely misplaced, and the correct legal
position is enunciated in authoritative Supreme Court
decisions, including Executive Engineer vs. Somaseetty
(Supra), which hold that daily wage workers engaged in
State infrastructure projects do not acquire the status of
industrial workmen so as to claim reinstatement. Since the
respondent has led no evidence to establish otherwise, the
Labour Court acted without jurisdiction, and the award is
liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
Incharge Officer And Anr vs Shankar Shetty on 31 August, 2010
On that basis,
his present age would be approximately 59 years, which is
almost at the verge of the age of superannuation in
government service. In such circumstances, reinstatement
at this stage would be wholly impractical and devoid of any
real operative benefit to the workman. Hon'ble Supreme
Court has consistently held that where the employee is
nearing or has crossed the age of superannuation, and
especially where the engagement was daily-wage or casual
in nature, monetary compensation rather than
reinstatement is the appropriate and equitable relief.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankar Shetty (supra) and
BSNL v. Maniram, (supra), has repeatedly held that
reinstatement is not an automatic consequence in cases
involving daily wagers, especially where the engagement
was purely casual, there was no sanctioned post, and
considerable time has elapsed. These principles squarely
apply here.
Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Bangalore Water-Supply & Sewerage ... vs R. Rajappa & Others on 21 February, 1978
13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the entire material available on record, this
7
Court is of the considered opinion that although the State-
petitioners has raised multiple grounds challenging the
learned Labour Court's award, none of the findings
recorded by learned Labour Court on jurisdiction,
computation of service, or illegality of termination warrant
interference. However, the relief granted requires
modification in accordance with the principles evolved by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases concerning long-lapsed
engagements of daily-wage employees. Learned State
Counsel's argument that the Irrigation Department does
not constitute an "industry" is misconceived. The
Constitution Bench in Bangalore Water Supply (supra)
remains the authoritative law and holds that systematic
activities carried out through employer-employee
cooperation for production or distribution of goods or
services constitute "industry", save functions that are
strictly sovereign such as policing, legislation, or
administration of justice. The works undertaken by the
Maneri Bhali Tunnel Construction Division relate to
construction and execution of irrigation infrastructure, a
public utility activity squarely falling within the industrial
fold. The petitioners have neither pleaded nor proved that
the work in question was sovereign in nature.
R.M. Yellatti vs The Asst. Executive Engineer on 7 November, 2005
16. The above exposition squarely applies to the
present case. The respondent-workman here duly entered
the witness box and furnished specific and detailed oral
testimony regarding his period of engagement, the number
9
of days worked, and the circumstances in which he was
denied further work. He also relied on Sundays and paid
holidays as part of continuous service, a contention
supported by judicial authority. Significantly, as learned
Labour Court has recorded, the employer failed to produce
reliable muster rolls, wage registers, or any
contemporaneous documentary material to rebut the
workman's account. In the absence of such evidence, and
in view of the employer's exclusive custody of relevant
records, learned Labour Court was fully justified in
accepting the workman's version and holding that he had
completed more than 240 days of service. Applying the
principles laid down in Yellatti (supra), this Court finds no
perversity or infirmity in the Labour Court's factual
determination so as to warrant interference in writ
jurisdiction.
Workmen Of American Express ... vs Management Of American Express ... on 28 August, 1985
Similarly, Workmen of American Express v.
Management, (1985) 4 SCC 71, clarified that all days
during which the employee could not work for no fault of
his own must be counted.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Surendranagar District Panchayat vs Dahyabhai Amarsinh on 25 October, 2005
In Surendranagar District
Panchayat v. Dahyabhai Amarsinh, (2005) 7 SCC 754,
the Court held that the burden of proving discontinuity rests
entirely upon the employer. The Labour Court has
specifically recorded that no reliable oral or documentary
evidence was produced by the employer to rebut the
workman's version, a finding that remains uncontroverted.
In such circumstances, there was no reason to disbelieve
the testimony of the workman.