Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)The Factories Act, 1948
Management Of Kairbetta ... vs Rajamanickam And Others on 24 March, 1960
The definition makes it clear that the failure to give work by the employer should be on account of shortage of coal, power or raw materials or the accumulation of stocks or the breakdown of machinery or for any other reason. The Supreme Court in Kairbetta Estates, Kotagiri v. Rajamanickam [1960] 18 F.J.R. 241, in construing the expression 'any other reason' in Section 2(kkk) of the Industrial Disputes Act held that the expression 'any other reason' should be construed to mean, reason similar or analogous to the preceding reasons specified in the definition. The Court, in construing Section 2(kkk), held that 'lay-off' takes place for one or more of the reasons specified in the definition and that 'any other reason' to which the definition refers must be a reason which is allied or analogous to the reasons already specified. Another condition that is necessary to come under the definition of 'lay-oft" is that the name of the workman should be borne on the muster rolls of his industrial establishment, and that he should not have been retrenched. Reading this definition by itself, it excludes refusal or failure of the employer to give work for reasons other than stated in the section and obviously the refusal by the management to give work to a badli workman because of there being no absentees amongst the permanent workers will not attract the definition of 'lay-off'. So also unless the badli workman claims to be a workman whose name is borne on the muster rolls of his industrial establishment, he cannot claim the benefit of this definition. Whether the name of the badli workman is or should be borne on the muster rolls of the industrial establishment, will be considered later.
Management Of The Lakshmi Mills Co. Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 22 November, 1961
In Lakshmi Mills Co. v. Labour Court 1965--I L.L.J. 92, a worker who had completed one year of service was shown in the muster rolls of the company as a badli. On account of cut in electricity supply, the badli workers along with the permanent workmen in the establishment were not given work. The badli workman claimed lay-off compensation under Section 25-C of the Act. The Court held that the primary cause for the non-employment of the concerned worker was the electricity cut. But for the cut, the concerned worker would have been employed continuously as he had been before the relevant date when the first cut was imposed. In this view, the Court declined to examine the question whether any permanent worker was on leave and whether the concerned worker found himself without employment through the absence of a leave vacancy. When it is found that the concerned worker would have been continuously employed on those dates when he was laid-off, there can be no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that he would be entitled to the layoff compensation. This decision will not, therefore, be of any use to the respondent.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 62 in The Factories Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Girdharlal Laljibhai vs Nagrashna M.N. And Anr. on 8 January, 1964
In Ghirdharlal Laljibhai v. Nagrashna [1964] 31 F.J.R. 156, the Gujarat High Court held that the badli worker is not entitled to lay-off compensation when the badli worker was not given work as no permanent workman or probationer was absent on certain dates. This decision was strongly relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention. The Court held that from the very nature of his employment the badli worker was not entitled to work, unless a permanent workman or a probationer was absent and that the question of refusal or failure to give him employment could only arise when a permanent workman or a probationer was absent and that the explanation to Sub-section (1) of Section 25-C would not change the very nature of his employment under which he has a right to get employment only in the vacancies. The Court further observed that the effect of the explanation is that when a badli worker is available, the employer must provide a badli worker with work if he had completed one year's continuous service, and that there could be no right of any lay-off compensation in the absence of a right to get employment on the day in question as per the terms of contract of employment. Though the construction put upon the word 'employed', that the explanation to Section 25-C will cover only badli worker whose actual substitution has taken place, may be rather too restricted, I am in agreement with the view that a badli worker before he could claim Compensation should be entitled to claim that he should be employed in the place of a permanent worker.
Vijaykumar Mills, Ltd. vs Labour Court And Anr. on 7 April, 1960
In Vijayakumar Mills Ltd. v. Labour Court, Madurai [1960] 18 F.J.R. 286, the learned Judge was considering the question as to whether a workman whose name was found in the list of badli workmen and who was laid-off due to cut in electricity was entitled to compensation. The learned Judge at the outset observed that the case was one in which the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised as the subject-matter of the dispute is only a sum of Rs. 33.88 nP and the question related to a single worker. The case also proceeded on the basis that the workman had in fact been laid-off. The effect of the explanation to Section 25-C that before there could be a lay-off of a badli workman, he should be entitled to work in the place of another workman whose name is borne in the muster rolls of the industrial establishment was not presented before the learned Judge. As already pointed out, the case went on the concession that there had been a lay-off. In determining the question whether he is entitled to lay-off compensation, the learned Judge held thus:
1