INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947

Facts: The questions that were risen in this case related to the: (a) Power of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of
workmen (b) Application of the new amendment section to cases instituted prior to amendment.

Held: That the ID Act was a beneficial piece of ligislation enacted by the Parliament for the benefit of the employees. It should therefore be interpreted in the way that benefits the employees. Thereby, the newly amended section would not have retrospective application.

Facts: The question arose as to whether Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board is an 'industry' and whether its dispute could be tried by the Labour Court.

Held: Supreme Court laid down a test for declaring an entity as an industry:
(a) Industry is where there is systematic activity organised by co-operation between employer and employee for production and distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes
(b) absence of motive or gainful employment is irrelevant
(c) true focus is functional and decisive test is nature of the activity with special emphasis on employer-employee relationship
(d) an organisation does not cease to be trade and business merely because it is engaged in philanthropic activities.
Further, The Court also discussed the Dominant Nature Test whereby:
(a) where there are complex of activities some of which qualify for exemption and others do not then decisive predominant nature of goods and services would determine whether organisation is industry
(b) sovereign functions are exempted and so do not come within definition of industry
(c) Even in departments discharging sovereign functions, if there are units which are industries and they are substantially severable, then they can be considered to come within Section 2(j).

Facts: The Petitioner hired independent contractors who further hired workmen for carrying out the work. The question arose as to whether the Petitioner would be 'employer' for the workmen.

Held: That to determine whether person is employer, there should be an economic control and continued employment of the workmen. Further, if the livelihood of the workman depends on the services rendered, then a direct relationship or existence of independent contractor does not matter. The real employer would be the one who is in charge throughout.

Facts: The Appellant was a stenographer and accountant who was later promoted as an an assistant. On termination of his services, he rose an industrial dispute. The Labour Court dismissed his reference on the grounds that he was engaged in administrative work and was thereby not 'workman' under Section 2 (s) of ID Act.

Held: That the Appellant was 'workman' and that a person would not qualify as 'workman' if they had supervisory duties. The Court further stated that the primary and basic duties of a person have to be considered first and that additional duties would have no bearing on the duties of a person.

Facts: The Court answered the question which arose from conflicting opinions in decisions by Lower Courts in three different cases. In this case the question was decided as to Whether workmen are entitled to wages for strike, whether legal or illegal?

Held: That a strike is illegal if it contravenes the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act. A strike may be justified or unjustified depending on the nature of demands of workmen, service conditions, etc. The Court further explained that a strike is an abnormal event and the ID act simply aims to regulate the concept of strike without taking away the right of workmen to strike.

Facts: The appellant-Work man (a woman), was employed in the State Bank of Patiala, the Mall, Patiala, from July 13, 1973, till August 21, 1974, when her services were terminated. According to the workman the termination of her services was retrenchment' within the meaning of that expression in Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, since it did not fall within any of the 3 excepted cases mentioned in Section 2(oo). On the other hand the contention of the management was that the termination of services was due to the failure of the workman to pass the test which would have enabled her to be confirmed in the service. Therefore, it was not retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Held: That the discharge of the workman on the ground-she did not pass the test which would have enabled her, to be confirmed was 'retrenchment' within the meaning of Section 2(oo) and, therefore, the requirements of Section 25F had to be complied with. The Court also observed that the manifest object of these provisions is to so compensate the workman for loss of employment as to provide him the wherewithal to subsist until he finds fresh employment, which cannot be overlooked while interpreting.

Facts: The Appellant Company terminated the employment of the Respondent on basis of inquiry whereby he was deemed unfit to work in the establishment due to his misconduct. The Respondent's claim to be reinstated with compensation was allowed by the Labour Court.

Held: That the concept of retrenchment included discharge of the employee in good faith. Where an employee has been discharged on basis of a disciplinary proceeding as a punishment, the same cannot be said to be retrenchment.

Facts: The Appellant Company had closed off a division due to workers' threats of dire consequences of working in that division and Conciliation proceedings were ongoing. The workers claimed compensation for layoff under Section 25C of ID Act.

Held: That there is a difference between layoff and lock- out. A lay- off is when the management is required to provide compensation in absence of work due to lack of coal, etc. A lock -out is a tool which is available to the employer to enforce his demand just like a strike is used by employees. It was held that where the workers have gone out of the control of employer and the division had to be closed as a consequence, the same would be lock- out and not lay- off.

Facts: The Appellant's employment was terminated when he failed to respond to a Show Cause Notice issued due to his failure to respond to his transfer Notice from West Bengal to Bombay. The industrial dispute was referred for adjudication by the Government of West Bengal. The Appellant disputed the referrence stating that the Government of West Bengal did not have jurisdiction since his services were transferred to Bombay.

Held: That the situs of employment must be seen and it should also be seen as to where the dispute arose. The situs of last employment is important before filing an industrial dispute. The services were transferred to Bombay. It did not matter that the termination order was given in Calcutta. Thereby, the Government of West Bengal did not have a cause of action to raise a dispute.

Facts: Some Workmen went on strike depite a settlement having been reached in a Conciliation Proceeding. The Management sought to dismiss the workers and treated the strike as an illegal strike. A second conciliation settlement was reached between parties in regards to dismissal in absence of a Conciliation Officer.

Held: That the settlement reached in a conciliation done in accordance with provisions of law is binding on the parties and the parties cannot refuse to adhere to the terma and conditions of a binding settlement. The second conciliation settlement was not binding as it did not adhere to the provisions of the law.