Dear Friends,
Govt. of India after nearly 26th years amended the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 through its Amendment Act 2010, which has now come into force w.e.f. 15.09.2010 vide its Notification No. S.O. 2278(E) date 15.09.2010
The impact of amendments in Industrial Disputes Act are :
1. In case of individual dispute of workman related to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination by any means, now the workman has the right to approach labour court directly without waiting for conciliation proceedings and Govt. reference. But he has to wait for three months for this direct action from the date of filing his application before conciliation officer if the Govt. is not able to complete the reference process within three months. Earlier there was no such direct option available to workman to approach labour court.
2. Such workman in case of individual dispute has to file claim within time limit period of three years. Earlier there was no such limitation period prescribed under the ID Act.
3. Wage ceiling of workman has been enhanced from Rs. 1600/- per month to Rs. 10,000/- per month, which means now any person working in any industry doing any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work drawing wages up to Rs. 10000/- will be a workman. Earlier this limit was up to Rs. 1600/-. By this amendment the coverage of workman has been increased and more people are covered now under the Act.
4. Definition of appropriate Govt. has been amplified. Now the industry, corporation, PSEs owned or controlled by the Central Govt., for them appropriate Govt. would be Central Govt.
5. In case of such industry under the control of State Govt., appropriate Govt. would be State Govt.
6. Qualifications of labour court / tribunal Judges are expanded. Now the Dy. Labour Commissioners / Joint Labour Commissioners with degree of Law having 7 years of experience can also become labour court judges.
7. Every industry employing 20 or more workmen is now under legal obligation to constitute and have a grievance redressal machinery in place in the organization to resolve the workers dispute at the first level. Earlier it was not legally essential. The related provisions which were brought in the ID Act in 1984 were never enforced.
8. Now the provision has been made to execute the labour court / tribunal decision. Earlier there was no such provision in the Act and even after decision of the labour court / tribunal there was no machinery to enforce its execution on the employer. Now the labour court / tribunal shall transmit their award to concerned civil court who shall execute the award as if a decree was passed by the court.
regds,
anil kaushik
chief editor,BUSINESS MANAGER
B-138,Ambedkar Nagar,alwar-301001 (raj) india
Landline;0144-2372022
Mob;09829133699
YOUR TODAYS PROBLEMS ARE YESTERDAYS WRONG DECISIONS
From India, Delhi
181Govt. of India after nearly 26th years amended the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 through its Amendment Act 2010, which has now come into force w.e.f. 15.09.2010 vide its Notification No. S.O. 2278(E) date 15.09.2010
The impact of amendments in Industrial Disputes Act are :
1. In case of individual dispute of workman related to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination by any means, now the workman has the right to approach labour court directly without waiting for conciliation proceedings and Govt. reference. But he has to wait for three months for this direct action from the date of filing his application before conciliation officer if the Govt. is not able to complete the reference process within three months. Earlier there was no such direct option available to workman to approach labour court.
2. Such workman in case of individual dispute has to file claim within time limit period of three years. Earlier there was no such limitation period prescribed under the ID Act.
3. Wage ceiling of workman has been enhanced from Rs. 1600/- per month to Rs. 10,000/- per month, which means now any person working in any industry doing any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work drawing wages up to Rs. 10000/- will be a workman. Earlier this limit was up to Rs. 1600/-. By this amendment the coverage of workman has been increased and more people are covered now under the Act.
4. Definition of appropriate Govt. has been amplified. Now the industry, corporation, PSEs owned or controlled by the Central Govt., for them appropriate Govt. would be Central Govt.
5. In case of such industry under the control of State Govt., appropriate Govt. would be State Govt.
6. Qualifications of labour court / tribunal Judges are expanded. Now the Dy. Labour Commissioners / Joint Labour Commissioners with degree of Law having 7 years of experience can also become labour court judges.
7. Every industry employing 20 or more workmen is now under legal obligation to constitute and have a grievance redressal machinery in place in the organization to resolve the workers dispute at the first level. Earlier it was not legally essential. The related provisions which were brought in the ID Act in 1984 were never enforced.
8. Now the provision has been made to execute the labour court / tribunal decision. Earlier there was no such provision in the Act and even after decision of the labour court / tribunal there was no machinery to enforce its execution on the employer. Now the labour court / tribunal shall transmit their award to concerned civil court who shall execute the award as if a decree was passed by the court.
regds,
anil kaushik
chief editor,BUSINESS MANAGER
B-138,Ambedkar Nagar,alwar-301001 (raj) india
Landline;0144-2372022
Mob;09829133699
YOUR TODAYS PROBLEMS ARE YESTERDAYS WRONG DECISIONS
From India, Delhi
Dear Anil,
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.
With Regards,
R.N.Khola
From India, Delhi
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.
With Regards,
R.N.Khola
From India, Delhi
Dear
Please see https://www.citehr.com/285737-legal-c...-industry.html on specific impact on one of the amendments on the Staffing Industry
With Regards
Advocates & Notaries & Legal Consultants[HR]
E-mail : rajanassociates@eth,net,
Mobile : 9025792684.
From India, Bangalore
Please see https://www.citehr.com/285737-legal-c...-industry.html on specific impact on one of the amendments on the Staffing Industry
With Regards
Advocates & Notaries & Legal Consultants[HR]
E-mail : rajanassociates@eth,net,
Mobile : 9025792684.
From India, Bangalore
Dear Anil & Dear Khola, Thx 4 sharing the valuable information. Regards. Keshav Korgaonkar
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Dear All
Point no.2.....
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?
Please clear.
From India, Delhi
Point no.2.....
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?
Please clear.
From India, Delhi
Dear Anshu,
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.
regds,
Anil Kaushik
Chief Editor - Business Manager - HR Magazine
B-138, Ambedkar Nagar, Alwar - 301001 (Raj.) India
Mob. - 09829133699
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.
regds,
Anil Kaushik
Chief Editor - Business Manager - HR Magazine
B-138, Ambedkar Nagar, Alwar - 301001 (Raj.) India
Mob. - 09829133699
From India, Delhi
Hai Anil kaushik, Thaks for your valuable information, i want to subscribe business manager magzine ,please tell me what is the procedure now i am in hyderabad. Thanks& Regd Satish
From India, Hyderabad
From India, Hyderabad
Dear Anil,
It is a very good effort for sharing such useful information with people like us.
Thank you very much for this noble cause and please continue to let us know the new updates in field of HR.
Vishnu Thakor
9173430620
From India, Ahmadabad
It is a very good effort for sharing such useful information with people like us.
Thank you very much for this noble cause and please continue to let us know the new updates in field of HR.
Vishnu Thakor
9173430620
From India, Ahmadabad
Dear Mr.Kaushik, Thanks for timely information on latest amendment of IDAct and subsequent clarification to query of some citehr community member. Regards, SKHota
From India, Calcutta
From India, Calcutta
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Amendment to Payment of Bonus Act 2015.jpg
Maternity Benefit Amendment Act 2017_03.04.2017 .pdf