Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.44 seconds)The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
Section 3 in The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Workmen Represented By Secretary vs Management Of Reptakos Brett.And Co. ... on 31 October, 1991
22. Dr. Srivastava submits that the dearness allowance is provided for adequate neutralisation against the rise in the cost of living. The wage structure cannot be changed to mitigate the cost of living. Every time prices increase, the rise in price has to be taken into consideration, for fixing the wage structure, both to neutralise the rising cost of living and the financial burden that such rise in dearness allowance will cause to the employer. The conflicting claim of labour and capital are required to be harmonized on a reasonable basis. The concept of minimum wage has undergone change. A worker's wage is no longer a contract between an employer and an employee. It has the force of collecting bargaining under the labour laws. The Supreme Court observed in The Workmen Represented by Secretary v. The Management of Reptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. (supra) that each category of the wage structure has to be tested at the anvil of social justice which is the live-fibre of our society. The company was not allowed to restructure the dearness allowance scheme by abolishing the slab system which had stood the test of time on the ground that it resulted in over-neutralisation thereby landing the workmen in the high-wage island.
Hindustan Lever Ltd vs B.N. Dongre on 26 July, 1994
21. Dr. Y.K. Srivastava has relied upon the judgments in Ahmedabad Mill Owners' Association etc. vs. The Textile Labour Association AIR 1966 SC 497 (paras 43 and 44); C.V.K.U. Sahkari Mandi Ltd. vs. G.S. Barot AIR 1980 SC 31 (paras 9 & 10); Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills Ltd vs. Girni Kamgar Sangathan, Poona AIR 1981 SC 409 (paras 2, 3 and 4); The Workmen employed by M/s. Indian Oxygen Ltd. vs. M/s Indian Oxygen Ltd AIR 1986 SC 125 (pars 7 & 10); Hindustan Lever Limited vs. B.N. Dongre and others (pars 11 and 14); Hindustan Lever Ltd vs. Ashok Vishnu Kate and others (1995) 6 SCC 326 (paras 40, 41 & 42); Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (2010) 3 SCC 192 (paras 21 to 31 and 35 to 50).
Airfreight Ltd vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 4 August, 1999
24. We find substance in the reasoning adopted by Shri R.N. Singh appearing for the workmen, which is different than the reasoning adopted by learned Single Judge in support the impugned notification. He submits that the question of minimum wage and VDA is a matter of industrial adjudication and in any case the variable dearness allowance has its linkage to the wage and cost of living index. There has to be a constant factor to calculate VDA and that constant factor is basic wage. The variable dearness allowance has to be linked to basic wage and not to the cost of living index which is itself a variable factor. He submits that in the present case the neutralisation is not more than 100%. He has relied upon Airfreight Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka (supra) in which it was provided that the competent authority is not required to bifurcate each component of the costs of each item for fixing minimum wages. The lump sum amount of minimum wages is determined for providing adequate remuneration of the workman so that he can sustain and maintain himself. The dearness allowance is part and parcel or cost of necessities. In cases where the minimum rate of wage is linked up with VDA, it would not mean that it is a separate component which is required to be paid separately, where the employer pays a total pay package which is more than the prescribed minimum rate of wages.
Harjinder Singh vs Punjab State Warehousing Corp on 5 January, 2010
21. Dr. Y.K. Srivastava has relied upon the judgments in Ahmedabad Mill Owners' Association etc. vs. The Textile Labour Association AIR 1966 SC 497 (paras 43 and 44); C.V.K.U. Sahkari Mandi Ltd. vs. G.S. Barot AIR 1980 SC 31 (paras 9 & 10); Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills Ltd vs. Girni Kamgar Sangathan, Poona AIR 1981 SC 409 (paras 2, 3 and 4); The Workmen employed by M/s. Indian Oxygen Ltd. vs. M/s Indian Oxygen Ltd AIR 1986 SC 125 (pars 7 & 10); Hindustan Lever Limited vs. B.N. Dongre and others (pars 11 and 14); Hindustan Lever Ltd vs. Ashok Vishnu Kate and others (1995) 6 SCC 326 (paras 40, 41 & 42); Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (2010) 3 SCC 192 (paras 21 to 31 and 35 to 50).
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
Hindustan Lever Ltd vs Ashok Vishnu Kate & Ors on 15 September, 1995
21. Dr. Y.K. Srivastava has relied upon the judgments in Ahmedabad Mill Owners' Association etc. vs. The Textile Labour Association AIR 1966 SC 497 (paras 43 and 44); C.V.K.U. Sahkari Mandi Ltd. vs. G.S. Barot AIR 1980 SC 31 (paras 9 & 10); Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills Ltd vs. Girni Kamgar Sangathan, Poona AIR 1981 SC 409 (paras 2, 3 and 4); The Workmen employed by M/s. Indian Oxygen Ltd. vs. M/s Indian Oxygen Ltd AIR 1986 SC 125 (pars 7 & 10); Hindustan Lever Limited vs. B.N. Dongre and others (pars 11 and 14); Hindustan Lever Ltd vs. Ashok Vishnu Kate and others (1995) 6 SCC 326 (paras 40, 41 & 42); Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (2010) 3 SCC 192 (paras 21 to 31 and 35 to 50).