MISCELLANEOUS LABOUR LAW PROVISIONS
| Subject Matter : Social Welfare Legislations |
| Relevant Section : Article 23 of the Constitution of India, 1949 prohibits trafficking in human beings and beggars. Article 24 of the Constitution of India, 1949 prevents employment of children under the age of 14 years. Section 20 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 puts an obligation on the principal employer to provide for amenities required by the contract labour where the same are not provided by the employer. |
| Key Issue : Whether there was any violation of the rights of the workers by the contractors? |
| Citation Details : People's Union for Democratic Rights and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (18.09.1982 - SC): MANU/SC/0038/1982 |
| Summary Judgment : Facts: A PIL was filed by PUCL on basis of a report by three scientists that multiple labour laws were being violated by the contactors and State in relation to various projects of Asian Games. Judgment: Held, that the contractors had committed a serious violation of labour laws and that the minimum wages were not being paid along with a disparity between the minimum wages of men and women. Further, it eas held that its the obligation on the State to tackle such violations of labour law and that the fundamental rights are not infringed. Held: |
| Subject Matter : Execution Proceeding |
| Relevant Section : Section 17 of Working Journalists Act, 1955 provides for recovery of money due from an employer. Section 33C of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides procedure for recovery of money due from an employer in an industry. |
| Key Issue : Whether Section 17 of the Act provides only for a mode of recovery of any money due to a working journalist or if it empowers the State Government act as a forum for adjudicating upon the merits of the disputed claim? |
| Citation Details : Kasturi and Sons (Private) Ltd. vs. N. Salivateeswaran and Ors. (19.03.1958 - SC): MANU/SC/0156/1958 |
| Summary Judgment : Facts: The Respondent sought an application to the Labour Minister under Section 17 of WJ Act on rejection of management to reconsider termination. The State of Bombay selected an authority under Section 17 which was challenged for its jurisdiction by the Respondent. The Authority ruled in its favour saying it had jurisdiction. Held: That Section 17 was similar to Section 33C of ID Act and thereby, provides a mechanism to recover amount due from employer once it is decided by the Labour Court. |