Labour Laws & Ir
Korgaonkar K A
Ir & Liaison
Thanks for providing the information to the members. After going through the attachment it is noticed that at Sr. 6 in place of DLC we to read it as Dy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) & in place of JLC this is to be read as Joint Labour Commissioner of the State.
Submitted only for information.
3rd October 2010 From India, Delhi
Please see https://www.citehr.com/285737-legal-c...-industry.html on specific impact on one of the amendments on the Staffing Industry
Advocates & Notaries & Legal Consultants[HR]
E-mail : rajanassociates@eth,net,
Mobile : 9025792684.
4th October 2010 From India, Bangalore
In Haryana state Co-Operative land development Bank Vs. Neelam
In this case aggrieved filed a suit after seven years.2005 LLJ 1153 SC
SC awarded in the above case.
As per amended ID act ceiling limit has been increased from 1600 to 10000.
What is the meaning of this ceiling limit in this context.If a worker is drawing more than 10000 ,wil he be supposed as workman?
4th October 2010 From India, Delhi
Your questions about the impact of the recent amendments are very relevant. I owe the responsibility to clarify the points raised by you.
1. Till this recent amendment, there was no provision in the ID Act regarding time period during which workman was to file the claim / raise the individual Industrial Dispute before the conciliation officer of Labour department.
2. For the first time now the Act has been amended to put a bar on raising individual Industrial Dispute within time period of three years, which means now, if the workman raises his individual dispute of termination, retrenchment, dismissal or discharge from service after three years period, it will be treated as time barred and will not be entertained. Workman in such case will not get any relief.
3. The case of Haryana State Co-operative Land Development Bank vs. Neelam which you have referred is a case where the workman raised industrial dispute of her illegal termination after 7 years. Labour Court denied any relief to her on the ground that her claim was belated. Court has used his discretion at this point though there was no such provision in the ID Act about time limit for raising dispute. High Court set aside the order of Labour Court with the observation that since there was no provision of time limit in the Act, workman can't be denied of any relief and her raising the dispute after 7 years she can't be debarred from seeking any relief against her illegal termination. However Supreme Court reversed the order of High Court and upheld the judgment of labour court because labour court considered the conduct of the workman in approaching the court after 7 years as a relevant factor for refusing to grant any relief. Though there were other issues like estoppel, waiver, acquiesence, res-judicata were also involved and discussed, are not relevant here to the point, hence not elaborated.
4. In many cases appropriate Govt. considered this factor of time and decided not to refer the dispute if raised after 7 to 13 years of illegal termination and courts have upheld the decision of the Govt. Courts also have refused to grant any relief in such belated claims purely on the basis of their discretion. It is also held that even if the act did not have any limitation period will not allow workman to raise dispute at any point of time as per his wish.
5. Definition of the workman has been amended to the extent that now if the workman doing any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work and drawing the wages not exceeding Rs. 10000/- will be deemed as workman and he can enforce his / her rights provided under Industrial Disputes Act. This does not mean that if a workman is doing above activities and drawing more than 10000/- will not be a workman. The person employed in supervisory capacity and by nature of his duties if he functions mainly as manager and drawing wages more than 10000/- will not be a workman. Earlier this limit was up to 1600/-. If a person mainly function as manager but draws less than 10000/-, will not be excluded from the definition.
6. I would like to make it clear here that neither the designation of a person or his wages are determinant factors to conclude whether a person is workman or not. Courts have repeatedly decided that it is the nature of duties which will determine whether a person is a workman or not.
7. Not let us take an example- if a person is functioning in a supervisory capacity but drawing less than 10000/-, he will not be deemed as a supervisor and excluded from the definition of the workman of the ID Act. Three conditions are to be fulfilled before a person is to be considered not a workman -
(i) he should be appointed in the supervisory capacity
(ii) his wages should be more than 10000/-
(iii) he should be vested with the powers of manager and functions mainly of a managerial nature.
I hope, your doubts are clear now.
Chief Editor - Business Manager - HR Magazine
B-138, Ambedkar Nagar, Alwar - 301001 (Raj.) India
Mob. - 09829133699
5th October 2010 From India, Delhi
14th October 2010 From India
It seems that you have not gone through the attachment made by Mr. Anil Kaushik. It is clearly mentioned in this attachment that in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 2 of section 1 of the Industrial Disputes ( Amendment) Act, 2010 the Central Govt. hereby appoints the 15th Day of September 2010 as the date on which the same Act shall come into force - Ravi Mathur Adll. Secy.
Now if this is not correct then let us know what is the position as on today.
16th October 2010 From India, Delhi
Thank you for sharing valuable amendment.
1. Notification is published ?
2. In this definition clerical or supervisory work drawing wages up to Rs. 10000/- will be a workman. But clerical
people are getting salary. is it same ?
3. Now Supervisory work also included what are the indicators.
I request every member to share view on this.
3rd December 2010 From India, Vadodara
2nd May 2011 From India, Pune
As per the ID Act Amendment Section 9 C was introduced .By that setting up of Grievance Redressal Machinery became a statutory need :
Section 9 C is extracted :
9C. (1) Every industrial establishment employing twenty or more workmen shall have one or more Grievance Redressal Committee for the resolution of disputes arising out of individual grievances.
(2) The Grievance Redressal Committee shall consist of equal number of members from the employer and the workmen.
(3) The chairperson of the Grievance Redressal Committee shall be selected from the employer and from among the workmen alternatively on rotation basis every year.
(4) The total number of members of the Grievance Redressal Committee shall not exceed more than six:
Provided that there shall be, as far as practicable one woman member if the Grievance Redressal Committee has two members and in case the number of members are more than two, the number of women members may be increased proportionately.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the setting up of Grievance Redressal Committee shall not affect the right of the workman to raise industrial dispute on the same matter under the provisions of this Act.
(6) The Grievance Redressal Committee may complete its proceedings within thirty days on receipt of a written application by or on behalf of the aggrieved party.
(7) The workman who is aggrieved of the decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee may prefer an appeal to the employer against the decision of Grievance Redressal Committee and the employer shall, within one month from the date of receipt of such appeal, dispose off the same and send a copy of his decision to the workman concerned.
HR professionals may provide their feedback in this thread on their experience in setting up this Grievance Redressal Machinery in their respective organization.
Advocates & Notaries -Legal Consultants-HR
E-mail : rajanassociates@eth,net,
Mobile : 9025792684.
more at https://www.citehr.com/285737-legal-...#ixzz1Xbr1Z7fo
11th September 2011 From India, Bangalore
You have provided very useful information. Thank you for that. But pls. clarify one thing that " the workman, who is drawing gross salary of less than 10,000/ or equal only can go to Labour court or workman drawing salary more than 10000/- can also go to Labour court" pls. clarify.
Thanks once again
12th September 2011 From India, Ranchi
Sir , I wanted to know whether an employee of a liaison office of a foreign company can work as a contractor for another branch of foreign company.
And if yes, what would be consequential implications (FOREX, Tax) with regard to the same.
24th August 2015 From India, Mumbai