top of page

Industrial Laws

Industrial law governs the employer-employee relationship, ensuring fair working conditions and protecting workers' rights. Born from the Industrial Revolution's harsh realities, it covers wages, safety, unionization, and social security. Its goal is to balance the interests of both employers and employees for a harmonious workplace.

LB – 503 – Industrial Law (including IDRA)


Unit 1: Dispute Settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(a) Investigation & Settlement of Industrial Disputes – General (sections 3 – 15)


  1. Bharat Bank Ltd. v Employees, AIR 1950 SC 188 


The key issue in the case of Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi and Ors. vs. Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi and The Bharat Bank Employees' Union, Delhi was whether the Supreme Court of India had jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to entertain an appeal against the decision of an Industrial Tribunal. The court examined whether the Industrial Tribunal's functions were judicial or quasi-judicial, thus falling within the scope of Article 136. The court concluded that the Industrial Tribunal, while not a court in the technical sense, performed judicial functions and thus its determinations could be appealed under Article 136. However, the court decided not to admit the appeal on the merits, dismissing it with costs, and suggested that the aggrieved parties seek redress through other appropriate proceedings.


(b) Dispute Settlement Machinery: Conciliation and Adjudication

(i) Conciliation/Mediation as a Dispute Settlement Mechanism

(ii) Adjudication: Voluntary Adjudication/Arbitration and Compulsory Adjudication



Unit 2: Reference of the Industrial Dispute

  1. Nature & Scope of the Power of the Appropriate Government under section 10

  2. Jurisdiction of Adjudicatory Authorities.

  3. Defective Reference


  1. The State of Madras v C.P. Sarathy, AIR 1953 SC 53 


The key issue in the case of State of Madras vs. C.P. Sarathy and Ors. was whether the reference made by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal was valid, given that it did not specify the particular disputes or the parties involved. The parties involved were the State of Madras and C.P. Sarathy, the managing director of Prabhat Talkies, along with the South Indian Cinema Employees' Association. The Supreme Court reasoned that the Government's reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act was an administrative act and did not require specifying the disputes, as long as an industrial dispute existed or was apprehended. The Court set aside the High Court's order quashing the criminal proceedings against Sarathy, thus allowing the appeal. The decision referenced the precedent set in the India Paper Pulp Co. case, affirming that the Government need not detail disputes in its reference.


  1. State of Bombay v K.P. Krishnan, AIR 1960 SC 1223 


The key issue in the case of State of Bombay vs. K.P. Krishnan and Ors. was whether the Government's refusal to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, based on the workmen's go-slow tactics, was justified. The parties involved were the State of Bombay (now Maharashtra) and the workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India Ltd. The Supreme Court held that the Government's decision was punitive and based on extraneous considerations, as the misconduct cited was not relevant to the dispute's merits. The Court affirmed the High Court's issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the Government to reconsider the reference, and dismissed the appeals.


Section 12. Duties of conciliation officers.—

(5) If, on a consideration of the report referred to in sub-section (4), the appropriate Government is satisfied that there is a case for reference to a Board, [Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal], it may make such reference. Where the appropriate Government does not make such a reference it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons therefor.



  1. Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh v State of Bihar, AIR 1989 SC 1565


The key issue in this case was whether the convoy drivers represented by Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh were employees of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. (TELCO), and thus entitled to have their dispute referred to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellants challenged the State of Bihar's refusal to make such a reference. The Supreme Court found that the government had improperly adjudicated the merits of the dispute, which was beyond its administrative function under Section 10(1) of the Act. Citing precedents like Ram Avtar Sharma v. State of Haryana, the Court directed the State of Bihar to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal within one month, allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court's judgment.


  1. Sharad Kumar v Govt. of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2002 SC 1724 


The key issue in the case of Sharad Kumar vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. was whether the appellant, an Area Sales Executive, qualified as a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which would entitle him to have his termination dispute referred to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. The Supreme Court found that the Delhi High Court and the State Government erred by focusing solely on the appellant's job title rather than the nature of his duties. The Court emphasized that determining 'workman' status requires examining the actual duties performed, not just the job designation. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the Government of NCT of Delhi to refer the dispute, including the workman status question, to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court for adjudication, awarding costs to the appellant.


Section 2 [(s) “workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person—

(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.]



  1. The Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v Workmen, AIR 1967 SC 469


The key issue in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. vs. The Workmen and Ors. was whether the Industrial Tribunal could examine the existence of a strike and lock-out, and the fairness of bonus allocations. The parties involved were Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. and their workmen represented by various unions. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal must assume the existence of the strike and lock-out as stated in the reference order and could only assess their legality and justification. Regarding bonus allocations, the Tribunal was allowed to take evidence as there was no binding agreement for the year in question. The appeal concerning the Tribunal's jurisdiction on issues 3 and 4 was allowed, while the appeal on issue 1 was dismissed, and the case was remanded to the Tribunal for further proceedings. Appeals from the High Court were dismissed.


  1. M/S. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd v State of Jharkhand & Ors, (2014) 1 SCC 536


The key issue in Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. was whether the employees of Tata's cement division, transferred to Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd., remained Tata's employees and could demand reinstatement. Tata Steel Ltd. argued that the employees became Lafarge's responsibility post-transfer, while the employees claimed they were misled and sought to return to Tata. The Supreme Court found the terms of reference to the Labour Court were improperly worded, presupposing the employees' status, thus precluding Tata from presenting its case. The Court quashed the existing references and directed the government to issue a fresh reference reflecting the true nature of the dispute. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside.



Unit 3: Awards and Settlements 

  1. Settlement: Nature, Duration and Termination  sec. 2(p)

  2. Awards: Nature and Duration  sec. 2(b)

  3. Judicial Review of Industrial Awards


  1. Sirsilk v Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 160


The key issue in the case of The Sirsilk Ltd. and Ors. vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. was whether the publication of an industrial tribunal's award under Section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act is mandatory, even when a binding settlement under Section 18(1) has been reached between the parties. The appellants, The Sirsilk Ltd. and others, contended that the publication should be withheld due to the settlement. The Supreme Court held that while Section 17(1) is generally mandatory, in exceptional cases where a binding settlement under Section 18(1) exists, the government should withhold publication to avoid conflict with the award's binding nature under Section 18(3). The appeals were allowed, directing the government not to publish the awards, with each party bearing its own costs.


  1. Remington Rand of India Ltd. v Workmen, AIR 1968 SC 224


The key issue in the case of The Remington Rand of India Ltd. vs. The Workmen was whether the delayed publication of an industrial award invalidated it under Section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Supreme Court held that the time limit for publication was directory, not mandatory, meaning the award remained valid despite the delay. The Court referenced The Sirsilk Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh to support this interpretation. The appeal was partially allowed, with the matter remanded to the Tribunal for revising wage scales and adjustments, while other aspects of the award, such as dearness allowance and working conditions, were upheld. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.



Unit 4: Managerial Prerogative & Disciplinary Action


  1. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v Kushal Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 806 


The key issue in this case was whether the employer, The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd., was required to wait for the outcome of a criminal trial before dismissing its employee, Kushal Bhan, for alleged misconduct. The Supreme Court of India held that principles of natural justice do not mandate an employer to await the criminal court's decision before taking disciplinary action, especially in simple cases. The Court found no failure of natural justice in the company's inquiry and concluded that the tribunal erred in not approving the dismissal under Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the tribunal's order was set aside, granting approval for the respondent's dismissal.


  1. Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v Workmen, (1964) 3 SCR 652


 The key issue in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. The Workmen and Ors. was whether the dismissal of five workmen by the appellant was justified, given the alleged procedural deficiencies in the domestic enquiries conducted against them. The parties involved were Associated Cement Companies Ltd. and their workmen, including Mehnga Ram, Janak Raj, Vishwa Nath, Daulat Singh, and Malak Ram. The Supreme Court found that the enquiries against Malak Ram and Vishwa Nath were not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, as the enquiry officers improperly relied on their personal knowledge and failed to provide fair opportunities for defense. Consequently, the Tribunal's order for reinstatement and back wages for these two workmen was upheld. However, a compromise was reached for the other three workmen, resulting in the setting aside of the Tribunal's award against them.


  1. Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 155 


The key issue in the case of Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Its Workmen was whether the dismissal of workman K. K. Raghavan by Tata Oil Mills was justified under the company's standing orders. The Supreme Court of India examined whether the assault by Raghavan on a colleague was a private matter or related to employment, and whether the domestic enquiry was conducted fairly. The Court found that the assault was connected to employment issues and that the enquiry was fair, rejecting claims of malafides and victimization. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Industrial Tribunal's order for reinstatement, with Tata Oil Mills offering an ex gratia payment to Raghavan.


  1. Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Salai v P. Ganesan, AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 553


The key issue in this case was whether the pendency of a criminal case is sufficient grounds to stay departmental proceedings. The parties involved were Indian Overseas Bank and its employees, P. Ganesan and others. The Supreme Court of India held that departmental proceedings do not automatically warrant a stay due to pending criminal cases unless the charges and evidence are identical and involve complicated legal questions. The Court found that the High Court erred in staying the proceedings without proper legal analysis. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment, and the Court directed that the respondents bear the costs. The Court also noted that if the respondents wish to cross-examine witnesses, the Enquiry Officer should consider such requests according to the law.


  1. Kusheshwar Dubey v Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., AIR 1988 SC 2118) 


The key issue in Kusheshwar Dubey vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors. was whether disciplinary proceedings against an employee should be stayed pending the outcome of a criminal trial based on the same facts. The Supreme Court of India addressed the conflict between simultaneous disciplinary and criminal proceedings. The Court held that while there is no legal bar to parallel proceedings, it may be appropriate to defer disciplinary actions in certain cases to avoid prejudicing the employee's defense in the criminal trial. The Court allowed the appeal, vacated the High Court's order, and restored the trial court's injunction against the disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the need for case-specific judicial consideration rather than a rigid rule.


  1. Prem Nath Bali v Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Another, (2015) 16 SCC 415


The key issue in Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and Ors. was whether the appellant's prolonged suspension period should be included in calculating his pension after being compulsorily retired. The Supreme Court found that while the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly, the suspension period was excessively long and partly attributable to the respondents. The Court upheld the compulsory retirement but directed the respondents to include the suspension period in calculating the appellant's pension, allowing the appeal in part. The respondents were instructed to re-determine the pension within three months.



Unit – 5: Powers of the Adjudicatory Authorities Power in cases of Discharge/Dismissal and Application of Doctrine of Proportionality in awarding Punishments (section 11A)


  1. The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India P. Ltd. v. The Management, AIR1973 SC 1227


The key issue in this case was the interpretation of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and its applicability to industrial disputes referred for adjudication before its enactment on December 15, 1971. The parties involved were the Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. and the Management and others. The Supreme Court held that Section 11A allows tribunals to reappraise evidence and alter punishments in dismissal cases, but it does not apply retrospectively to disputes referred before December 15, 1971. The final disposition was that the appeal by the workmen was dismissed, and the appeals by the management were allowed to the extent that the Labour Court's contrary views were set aside. The tribunals were instructed to proceed with adjudications in line with this judgment.


  1. Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v State of Karnataka, (2006) 1 SCC 430 


The key issue in the case of Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. was whether the dismissal of Venkappa Gowda, a lecturer, for assaulting the Principal with a chappal was justified. The appellants, Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and Kuvempu Mahavidyalaya, challenged the Tribunal's decision to reduce the punishment to withholding three increments and reinstating Gowda with 60% back wages. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline in educational institutions and held that the punishment of dismissal was not disproportionate given the gravity of the misconduct. The Court set aside the Tribunal and High Court's judgments, allowing the appeals without costs, and reinforced the principle that tribunals should not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is grossly disproportionate.


  1. Scooters India Limited v Labour Court, AIR 1989 SC 149


The key issue in "Scooters India Limited vs. Labour Court and Ors." was whether the Labour Court's decision to reinstate an employee with 75% back wages, despite proven misconduct, was justified. The parties involved were Scooters India Limited and the respondent employee. The Supreme Court upheld the Labour Court's decision, reasoning that the Labour Court acted within its jurisdiction under Section 6(2A) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, which allows for setting aside dismissals and ordering reinstatement on suitable terms. The appeal was dismissed, with no costs ordered, and the Court expressed hope for the respondent's improved conduct.


  1. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v K.P. Agrawal, (2007) 2 SCC 433


The key issue in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. K.P. Agrawal and Ors. was whether the Labour Court was justified in modifying its award to grant back-wages after initially not addressing the issue, and whether the punishment of dismissal for the employee was excessive. The Supreme Court of India found that the Labour Court had the power to amend the award to address an omission but held that awarding back-wages was not warranted since the misconduct was proven. The Court also determined that the Labour Court was not justified in interfering with the dismissal punishment, as it was not shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and the Labour Court's award, upholding the dismissal of K.P. Agrawal.


  1. Raghubir Singh v General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar, 2014 (6) SLR 6 (SC)


The key issue in the case of Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways was whether the termination of Raghubir Singh's employment was lawful, given the alleged procedural lapses and delay in raising the industrial dispute. The Supreme Court of India found that the Labour Court and the High Court erred in dismissing the case on grounds of delay, emphasizing that the Industrial Disputes Act allows for disputes to be referred "at any time" and that procedural fairness was not followed in Singh's termination. The Court set aside the judgments of the Labour Court and the High Court, ruling that Singh's termination was invalid due to non-compliance with principles of natural justice and statutory procedures, and remanded the case for proper adjudication on merits.



Unit – 6: Restraints on Managerial Prerogatives (section 33 and 33A)


  1. The Management of Hotel Imperial v Hotel Workers Union, AIR 1959 SC 1342

 

The key issue in the case of The Management of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and Ors. vs. Hotel Workers' Union was whether employers could suspend workers without pay pending permission for dismissal under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the Industrial Tribunal could grant interim relief without an interim award. The parties involved were the managements of Imperial Hotel, Maiden's Hotel, and Swiss Hotel, and their respective workmen represented by the Hotel Workers' Union. The Supreme Court held that while employers could suspend workers without pay pending such permission, the Industrial Tribunal had the power to grant interim relief. The Court modified the interim relief order, requiring the employers to pay half the wages adjudged payable, and urged the Industrial Tribunal to expedite the final determination. The appeals were partly allowed, with each party bearing its own costs.


  1. Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki v Presiding Officer, AIR 1986 SC 1168


The key issue in the case of Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki vs. Presiding Officer and Ors. was whether the non-payment of subsistence allowance during the pendency of proceedings under Section 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, violated principles of natural justice, thereby vitiating the Tribunal's decision to permit the appellant's dismissal. The parties involved were Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki and the management of Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. The Supreme Court reasoned that denying subsistence allowance during prolonged proceedings deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to defend himself, constituting a violation of natural justice. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order, dismissed the management's application under Section 33(3), accepted the appellant's complaint under Section 33A, and directed the management to reinstate the appellant with back wages and allowances. The decision referenced the precedent of State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale, emphasizing the necessity of subsistence allowance for a fair defense.


  1. Ram Lakhan v Presiding Officer, (2000) 10 SCC 201


The key issue in the case of Ram Lakhan and Ors. vs. Presiding Officer and Ors. was whether employees suspended during pending disciplinary proceedings under Section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are entitled to subsistence allowance. The appellants, employees of Swatantra Bharat Mill, were suspended without subsistence allowance, which they contested. The Supreme Court, referencing precedents like Hotel Imperial and Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki, concluded that while management can suspend employees pending tribunal decisions, employees are entitled to subsistence allowance during suspension. The Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Delhi High Court and Industrial Tribunal judgments, directing payment of subsistence allowance to the appellants.



Unit 7: Wage – Concept and Kinds of Wages

(i) Concept; Kinds - 

  1. Minimum Wage; 

  2. Fair Wage; 

  3. Living Wage

(ii) The Labour Wage Code, 2019 (The Minimum Wage Act, 1948; The Payment of Wages Act, 1936; and Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 being repealed by the new Code)


  1. Crown Aluminum Works Ltd. v Workmen, AIR 1958 SC 130


The Supreme Court of India addressed labor disputes between Indian Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. and their workmen, focusing on whether the company was justified in discharging or suspending certain employees. The court examined the interpretation of notices related to a lock-out and the application of company standing orders regarding absenteeism. The court upheld the decisions of the lower tribunals in most cases, dismissing Civil Appeals 44, 45, and 337, but allowed Civil Appeal 336 in part, setting aside the reinstatement of eight employees. The parties were instructed to bear their own costs.


  1. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd. v Workmen, AIR 1964 SC 689 


The Supreme Court of India addressed the key issue of whether the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, correctly applied the industry-cum-region formula in determining wages, dearness allowance, and gratuity for the workmen of Greaves Cotton and Co. and its associated companies. The appellants, Greaves Cotton and Co. and others, contested the Tribunal's award, arguing improper application of the formula and inappropriate comparisons with non-comparable concerns. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding clerical and subordinate staff but found merit in the appellants' contention concerning factory workmen, remanding the case for reconsideration of their wage structure. The appeals concerning gratuity and retrospective effect were dismissed, and the Tribunal was instructed to reassess factory workmen's wages and dearness allowance, with the new award effective from April 1, 1959.


  1. The Workmen v The Management of Reptakos Brett & Co. Ltd., AIR 1992 SC 504


The key issue in this case was whether Reptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. could restructure the dearness allowance (DA) scheme by abolishing the slab system, which had been in place for nearly thirty years, to the detriment of the workmen. The parties involved were the workmen represented by their Secretary and the management of Reptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. The Supreme Court of India found that the Tribunal and High Court erred in abolishing the DA slab system without sufficient justification, as the company failed to prove financial incapacity to maintain the existing scheme. The Court emphasized that wage structures should not be revised to the detriment of workers unless the employer demonstrates financial inability to sustain them. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Tribunal's award and the High Court's judgment, and the workmen were awarded costs.


  1. People's Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473


The key issue in People's Union for Democratic Rights and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. was whether the labor laws were being observed for workers employed in construction projects for the Asian Games. The petitioners, People's Union for Democratic Rights, highlighted violations based on a report by social scientists. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of public interest litigation as a tool to ensure justice for disadvantaged groups, asserting that such litigation is a collaborative effort to uphold constitutional and legal rights. The court treated the letter as a writ petition, underscoring the role of public interest litigation in addressing systemic issues affecting the poor. The final disposition involved the court's acknowledgment of the need for observance of labor laws, though specific outcomes or directives were not detailed in the provided text.



Unit 8: Employees compensation Act, 1923 & Employee State Insurance Act, 1948

  1. Definitions

  2. Concept of injury ―arising out of and in the course of employment

  3. Disablement: Partial and Total; Temporary and Permanent


  1. B.E.S.T. Undertaking v Agnes, (1964) 3 SCR 930 


The key issue in this case was whether the accident that led to the death of Nanu Raman, a bus driver for the B.E.S.T. Undertaking, arose "out of and in the course of his employment" under Section 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The parties involved were the General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay (appellant) and Agnes, the widow of Nanu Raman (respondent). The Supreme Court, by majority, held that the accident occurred during the course of employment, as the facility to travel in buses was a condition of service necessary for the efficiency and punctuality of the drivers, given the distances in Bombay. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision to award compensation to the widow. The judgment referenced the doctrine of notional extension and various precedents to support its reasoning.


  1. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. v E.S.I. Corporation, 2016 (4) SCC 521


The key issue in the case of Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. vs. E.S.I. Corporation and Ors. was whether casual workers are covered under the definition of "employee" in Section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, and the period for which the Turf Club is liable to pay contributions. The Supreme Court held that casual employees are indeed covered under the ESI Act, as the Act's definition of "employee" is broad and includes those employed for part of a wage period. The Court rejected the Turf Club's reliance on earlier consent terms and ruled that the ESI Act applied to the Turf Club from 1978, based on a notification from that year. The Court allowed the ESI Corporation's appeal, requiring the Turf Club to pay contributions from 1978, along with interest, and dismissed the Turf Club's appeal, imposing costs of Rs. 2 lakhs.



Unit 9: The Labour Wage Code, 2019 (The Payment of Bonus Act 1965 repealed by the new Wage Code, 2019) & Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 with Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2018


  1. Jalan Trading Co. (P.) Ltd. v Mill Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1967 SC 691 


The key issue in the case of Jalan Trading Co. (Private Ltd.) vs. Mill Mazdoor Union was the validity of certain provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, particularly Sections 33, 34(2), and 37, which were challenged as discriminatory and unconstitutional. The parties involved were Jalan Trading Co. (Private Ltd.) and Mill Mazdoor Union. The Supreme Court of India found that Sections 33 and 34(2) were discriminatory as they imposed an arbitrary and onerous liability on employers based on the fortuitous circumstance of pending disputes, and Section 37 improperly delegated legislative power to the executive. Consequently, these sections were declared ultra vires, while the rest of the Act was upheld. The appeal by Jalan Trading Co. was allowed, and the order of the Industrial Tribunal was set aside, with no order as to costs.


  1. Birla Institute of Technology v State of Jharkhand and Others, (2019) 4 SCC 513


The key issue in the case of Birla Institute of Technology vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. was whether Respondent No. 4, a teacher, was entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, following an amendment to the definition of "employee" in 2009 with retrospective effect from 1997. The Supreme Court initially allowed the appeal based on a prior decision in Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association but later recalled its order upon realizing the amendment's impact. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that teachers are entitled to gratuity under the amended Act, and imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on the appellant.



Unit 10: Social Security Legislations: Salient Features

  • Maternity benefit Act, 1961: Relevant Provisions

  • Factories Act, 1948 (Special Emphasis on provisions related to Women and Children)

  • The Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation Of Employment And Conditions Of Service) Act, 1979: Salient Features

  • The Industries Development and Regulation Act of India (1951): Preventive, curative and Creative Provisions


  1. Prag Narain v The Crown, AIR 1928 Lah 78


In the case of Prag Narain v. The Crown, the court ruled that Prag Narain, the occupier of an ice factory, was not guilty of failing to provide a notice of occupation under the Indian Factories Act. The case hinged on whether the six salesmen employed in the factory's sales department could be considered "employed in the factory" for the purpose of meeting the 20-person threshold defined by the Act. The court, led by J. Addison, found that the salesmen, whose work was solely related to the sale of the finished product, were not involved in any process "incidental to, or connected with, the manufacturing process." The judgment clarifies that the term "factory" and "employed" under the Act refers to work directly related to the production of an article up to the point it is ready for delivery. Therefore, since only 18 persons were employed in the manufacturing process (19 including the manager), the factory did not meet the 20-person limit and was not subject to the Act, leading to the acquittal of the petitioner.


  1. Aedeshir H. Bhiwandiwala v State of Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 29


The key issue in the case of Ardeshir H. Bhiwandiwala vs. The State of Bombay was whether the Wadia Mahal Salt Works qualified as a "factory" under the Factories Act, 1948, requiring a license. The Supreme Court of India examined whether the Salt Works met the definitions of "premises" and "manufacturing process" under the Act. The Court concluded that "premises" included open land and that the conversion of sea water into salt involved a "manufacturing process" due to human intervention. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming the conviction of Ardeshir H. Bhiwandiwala for operating the Salt Works without a license, and dismissed the appeal.


  1. Municipal Cooperation of Delhi v Female Workers (Muster Roll) & Anr, 2000 SCC (L&S) 331


The key issue in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Female Workers (Muster Roll) and Ors. was whether female workers on muster roll should be granted maternity benefits, which were denied to them on the grounds of their non-regularized employment status. The Supreme Court of India, addressing the appeal by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, upheld the Industrial Tribunal's decision to extend maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, to these workers, emphasizing the principles of social justice and equality enshrined in the Constitution. The Court dismissed the appeal, directing the Corporation to comply with the Tribunal's order and provide maternity benefits to eligible muster roll female workers, aligning with both domestic and international human rights standards.


  1. Balwant Rai Saluja v Air India Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 407


The key issue in the case of Balwant Rai Saluja vs. Air India Ltd. was whether workers engaged in statutory canteens through a contractor could be considered employees of the principal establishment, Air India. The Supreme Court of India, involving parties Balwant Rai Saluja and Air India Ltd., concluded that such workers are deemed employees of the principal employer only for the purposes of the Factories Act, 1948, and not for other purposes like regularization. The Court emphasized the need for an employer-employee relationship, requiring absolute and effective control by the principal employer, which was not established in this case. The appeal was dismissed, with the Court relying on precedents like Indian Petrochemicals Corp. Ltd. v. Shramik Sena, affirming that statutory canteen workers are not automatically regular employees of the principal employer.


  1. Manisha Priyadarshini v Aurobindo College- Evening & Ors, LPA 595/2019 & C.M.Applns.49913-14/2019 decided on 01.05.2020 


In this case, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi found that the appealant (an ad-hoc Assistant Professor), who had been employed for five years, was denied a renewal of her contract by a college after she requested maternity leave. The college claimed her contract had expired and she was unavailable for work, but the court found this justification to be arbitrary and discriminatory. The court noted that the college had a routine practice of renewing ad-hoc contracts with a short break, and it had continued to employ other, more junior ad-hoc professors in the same department. Therefore, the court concluded that the non-renewal of her contract was a retaliatory action based on her pregnancy and her request for leave, which it deemed a violation of her fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The court set aside the college's termination order and directed her immediate reinstatement as an ad-hoc Assistant Professor with costs.


~The End~

bottom of page