Supreme Court Ruling on Tata Steel Ltd's Growth Shop
The Supreme Court has imposed a fine on the Growth Shop of Tata Steel Ltd in Jharkhand for violating various provisions of the Factories Act and rules. The allegations included that the management took overtime service from contract laborers without providing them overtime slips, they were not given a leave book, and in the canteen, there was no partition for women workers. Additionally, doors and windows were not fly-proof, there was no rate card, nor was there hot water to clean dishes.
Cases were filed against the manager and others concerned. They moved the high court, which refused to quash the criminal proceedings. They then appealed to the Supreme Court, which gave them a chance to rectify the defects as they were "apparently trivial." The accused persons returned stating that the defects had been cured.
The question then arose whether that was enough and whether they should be punished under Section 92 of the Act. They argued that they had no criminal intent and therefore should be exonerated. The state government contended that the violations should not be considered "trivial." The Supreme Court ruled that although there was no criminal intent, labor law was still violated. It imposed a fine of ₹50,000 as punishment. The Supreme Court order dated 4.5.2016 in this regard is attached.
The Supreme Court has imposed a fine on the Growth Shop of Tata Steel Ltd in Jharkhand for violating various provisions of the Factories Act and rules. The allegations included that the management took overtime service from contract laborers without providing them overtime slips, they were not given a leave book, and in the canteen, there was no partition for women workers. Additionally, doors and windows were not fly-proof, there was no rate card, nor was there hot water to clean dishes.
Cases were filed against the manager and others concerned. They moved the high court, which refused to quash the criminal proceedings. They then appealed to the Supreme Court, which gave them a chance to rectify the defects as they were "apparently trivial." The accused persons returned stating that the defects had been cured.
The question then arose whether that was enough and whether they should be punished under Section 92 of the Act. They argued that they had no criminal intent and therefore should be exonerated. The state government contended that the violations should not be considered "trivial." The Supreme Court ruled that although there was no criminal intent, labor law was still violated. It imposed a fine of ₹50,000 as punishment. The Supreme Court order dated 4.5.2016 in this regard is attached.
1 Attachment(s) [Login To View]