Skip to content



(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 496-97 of 1999)
Distt. Manager, APSRTC, Vijayawada Appellant Vs. K. Sivaji & others
Respondents, decided on11/30/2000.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Hon’ble Mr.
Justice S.N. Variava.
Subject Index: Labour – payment of wages act – Section 15(2)
— Andhra Pradesh Factories and Establishments (National Festival and other
Holidays) Act, 1974 — Section 11(1)(c) — Constitution of India — Article
12 — appellant Road Transport Corporation established under section 3 of the
Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 — High Court held the appellant not
under the control of the Central or the State Government and therefore the
provisions of the said Act are applicable — reliance placed by High Court on
Section 68-A, Motor Vehicles Act — whether the order of the High Court can
be sustained? — held no — held the Appellant Corporation is under the
control of the State Government, therefore, the provisions of the said Act
would not be applicable to it by virtue of Section 11(1)(c) of the said Act
— appeals allowed.

(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 6009-6010 of 2001
[with C.A. No. 6011, 6012/2001, T.C. No. 1, 5-7, 14, 17 and 18/2000, C.A.
Nos. 719-720/2001, 5798-99/98, 6013-6022, 6023/2001, 4188-94, 4195/98,
6024-6025/2001, T.P.(C) No. 169, 284-302/2000, C.A. No. 6029, 6030-6034/2001,
T.P.(C) No. 308-337 of 2000 and C.A. No. 141 of 2001])
Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others etc. etc. Appellants Vs. National
Union Water Front Workers and Others etc.etc. Respondents, decided on 8/30/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Kirpal, Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah, Hon’ble Mrs. Justice
Rum Pal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishna.
Subject Index: Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1970 —
section 2(1)(a) — Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — section 2(a) —
automatic absorption of contract labour — question of.

(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (C) No. 82 of 2001)
Rajendra Deva Petitioner Vs. Hari Fertilizers Sahupuri Varanasi Respondent, decided
on 10/18/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Mohapatra and Hon’ble Mr.
Justice Shivaraj V. Patil.
Subject Index: payment of wages act, 1936 — Section 15(3) — writ
petition for closure compensation and under 15(3) and costs — Payment of
Bonus Act — Section 10 — question of law whether the minimum bonus provided
under section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act comes within the purview of the
definition of term “wages” under section 2(vi) of the payment
of wages act – the contention of the petitioner that if the question of
law is answered in his favour he will be entitled to ten times the amount as
compensation under section 15(3) of the Act is devoid of any substance –
writ petition devoid of merit — dismissed.

(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 8300 of 2002 (with C.A. Nos.
8301-8303/2002 and 692 of 2005))
P.C. Agarwala Appellant Vs. Payment of Wages Inspector, M.P. and others
Respondents, decided on9/26/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice
H.K. Sema.
Subject Index: payment of wages act, 1936 (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) –
Section 3 — whether Directors of a company are personally liable for payment
of wages to workmen — under Section 3 liability cast on a person who has
been named as Manager of Factory and the employer jointly — liability of
Director to make payment arises if (i) he was employer, or (ii) he was a
person who has been named as Manager of the Factory — no allegation or
evidence led to establish the same — Directors do not have any personal
liability for payment for wages.

(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6288-6289 of 2000)
L.I.C. of India Appellant Vs. Anwar Khan (since deceased) through Lrs.
Respondent, decided on4/23/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble
Mr. Justice Dr.
Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr.
Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Retirement age of Development officer presently called
the Field officer — 58 yrs. by LIC — suit was filed primarily for declaration
that in view of the agreement between the Field Officers Association and the
LIC age of retirement is 60 years. The suit was decreed on 30.7.1981 and the
appeal by the LIC was dismissed on 27.3.1982. The second appeal filed before
the High Court is pending. During the pendency of the second appeal, the
respondent-Anwar Khan moved the authorities under the payment of wages
act, 1936 (in short the ‘Act’) claiming compensation. Stand of the LIC before
the original authority was that the Development Officers are not covered by
the Act as they get more than Rs.1,000/- p.m. By Order dated 11.6.1993, the
Assistant Labour Commissioner held that the claimant was entitled to wages
for the relevant period plus double the amount as compensation — The
compensation has to be worked out in terms of Section 15 of the Act. There
cannot be a claim both under Section 15 of the Act and Section 18 of the
Adhiniyam — the High Court’s view holding the claimant to be entitled to
compensation is clearly untenable — proviso to Section 15(3) has application,
considering the fact that the amount has been withdrawn, Court directs that
there shall not be any recovery. It is made clear that these directions shall
not in any way affect the decision in the second appeal.

(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2204 of 2007)
M/s. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories Appellant Vs. Deputy Labour Commr. and Ors.
Respondents, decided on 4/27/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr.
Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Industrial dispute — by award, the industrial Court, to
which reference of the dispute was made by the appropriate government directed
to reinstate the 17 workmen on the original post and pay scale with 50% of
their wages — workmen claimed bonus — bonus — wages — meaning of — Bonus may
be a deferred wage but the same must be construed in a different context.
When used in the context of ‘backwages’ and that too 50% of it, the same
would not include backwages. It is expected that had the Labour Court intended to include the
same, he would have explicitly said so. Even now, under the payment of
wages act, bonus does not come within the purview of wages — the impugned
judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is

(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6227 of 2004)
Prabhu Dayal Appellant Vs. Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Mujuri Vikas Khand Paniyara
& others Respondents,decided on 2/27/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble
Justice Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker and
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — section 6-H
— payment of wages act, 1963 — section 15 — challenge in this appeal is
to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court
allowing the writ petition filed by respondents – Sadhan Sahkari Samiti
Mujuri Vikas Khand Paniyara — challenge in this appeal was to the recovery
order issued by the labour authorities on the basis of a compromise award —
appellant was appointed as Salesman in the respondent-society which had four
employees, as such the labour laws were not applicable to it. But the
appellant filed cases under the payment of wages act, 1963 — before the
Labour Court, parties entered into a settlement and an award was passed on
9.12.1988 whereunder the appellant was entitled to receive a sum of Rs.12,726
— the High Court was justified in its view. But so far as award dated
9.12.1988 is concerned, the same was made on the basis of a settlement
between the parties. That being so, the High Court ought not to have set
aside the award.

(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 8452 of 2009 @ SLP
(C) No. 1982 of 2007 With Civil Appeal No. 8453 of 2009 @ SLP (C) No. 3624 of
2007 with SLP (C)…. CC No. 4065 of 2007 with Civil Appeal Nos. 8454-55 of
2009 @ SLP (C) No. 13462-13463 of 2007 with Civil Appeal No. 8457 of 2009 @
SLP (C) No. 20206 of 2007 with Civil Appeal No. 8458 of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.
9600 of 2008)
Bhuwalka Steel Indus. Ltd. Appellant withCentury Textiles & Industries
Ltd. Appellant with Steel Re-Rollers Association of Maharashtra Appellant Vs.
Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Bd. and another Respondents with Grocery
Markets and others Respondents, decided on 12/17/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon’ble Mr.
Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers
(Regulation of employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 — Sections 2(11) and 2(12) —
interpretation and true scope of the definitiion of the expression
‘unprotected worker’ and ‘worker’ — language of Section 2(11) is plain,
unambiguous and clear — held that once the language of the Section is
absolutely clear, there is hardly any scope for interpretation — when the
legislature consciously deletes certain words, then no question of relying
and insisting upon those words — held that the definition would have to be
all the more broad, engulfing maximum area to the advantage of a workman —
the appellants never urged that the Act was constitutionally invalid and in
fact, the constitutional validity of the Act has already been upheld — held
no interference to the well-reasoned and correct judgement of the Full Bench
— appeals dismissed — no costs.


Posted in NGT Advocates & Lawyers.

Copyright © 2015 India Limited. All rights Reserved.  
Terms of Use  |   Disclaimer  |   Feedback  |   Advertise with us