Institute of Management,

Nirma University
Master of Business Administration (HRM)

Batch 2022-24

Labour Laws

Group 5
SUBMITTED TO- PROF. POONAM CHHANIWAL

Submitted By:

NITYA JOSHI 228123

PARIDHI JAIN 228124
POOJA GANGWANI 228125
PRAGYA KAUSHIK 228126
PREETI SANGWAN 228127
RAJ KAMAL PANDEY 228128
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We would like to thank Nirma University's Institute of Management for giving us the opportunity
to study the subject of Labor Laws.

The guidance and assistance we received were the only things that allowed us to achieve
everything. I admire and appreciate Prof. Poonam Chhaniwal, our subject facilitator, for giving us
the chance to work on this project and for providing us with all the guidance and support we
required to complete it on time.

We also want to express our gratitude to our fellow classmates for always being kind and
accommodating of our queries. Their support was really beneficial and allowed.

Page 2 of 14
Table of Contents
1 PRO-FORMA FOR A CHARGE SHEET .................................................... 4

The Pro-forma for a charge sheet to a workman who tampers with the
attendance record: .............................................................................................. 4

2 CASE I............................................................................................................... 5

2.1 CASE PRECEDENTS FOR CASE I ....................................................... 6

3 CASE II ............................................................................................................. 7

3.1 CASE PRECEDENTS FOR CASE II ..................................................... 9

4 CASE III ......................................................................................................... 10

4.1 CASE PRECEDENTS FOR CASE III .................................................. 13

REFRENCES .................................................................................................... 14

Page 3 of 14
1) PRO-FORMA FOR A CHARGE SHEET
The Pro-forma for a charge sheet to a workman who tampers with the attendance
record:
[Company Logo]
09-03-2023
Charge Sheet No: 123456
Name of the Workman: XYZ
Designation: ABC
Department: Human Recourses

Dear XYZ,

This is to inform you that you have been charged with the following misconduct under the
Standing Orders of the company:

Charge: Tampering with the Attendance Record

Details of the Charge: On 07-03-2023 it has been observed that you have tampered with the
attendance record of the company by marking yourself present despite being absent from work.
This act is considered gross misconduct and is a violation of the company's rules and
regulations.
You are hereby required to submit your written explanation for the above charge within 2 days
from the date of receipt of this charge sheet. If you fail to submit your explanation within the
given timeframe, it will be presumed that you have no explanation to offer, and the matter will
be disposed of accordingly.
You are also required to attend an inquiry on 12-03-2023, where you will be given an
opportunity to present your case and defend yourself against the charge.
Please note that if you are found guilty of the charge, appropriate disciplinary action will be
taken against you, which may include termination of your services.

You are also advised to hand over all the company property in your possession before leaving
the premises of the company.

Please acknowledge receipt of this charge sheet.

Sincerely,
[Name and Designation of the Authorized Person]
[Company Seal]
Page 4 of 14
2) CASE I

Resignation when obtained under pressure – is valid. Please justify.

Depending on the circumstances, a resignation that was compelled may or may not be regarded
as valid. The resignation can be viewed as being forced and so illegitimate if it was done so in
an illegal, unethical, or forceful manner. Threats of danger to one's physical safety, extortion,
or harassment are a few examples of such circumstances.

On the other hand, the resignation would probably be regarded as voluntary and hence
acceptable if the pressure was simply a result of challenging or uncomfortable working
conditions, such as a demanding boss or a toxic work environment.

According to Article 300 [285] of the Labor Code, “An employee may terminate without just
cause the employee-employer relationship by serving a written notice on the employer at least
one (1) month in advance.”[1] This means that an employee can resign under pressure and still
be considered valid. Additionally, the Supreme Court has set a practical rule on forced
resignations, stating that an employee resigns “on the day he tells his employer, not his last day
at work.”[2] This means that resignations obtained under pressure are valid, even if the
employee does not work their full notice period.

In any instance, it is advised for a person who feels pressure to resign to get legal counsel and
assistance to make sure their rights are safeguarded and that they are not being unfairly coerced
to quit their employment.

Sources:
1. https://www.duranschulze.com/employment-contract-validity-of-employees-resignation/
2. https://www.employmentlawgroup.com/in-the-news/articles/supreme-court-offers-
practical-rule-forced-resignations/

Page 5 of 14
2.1) CASE PRECEDENTS FOR CASE I

Air India v. Nergesh Meerza

Air India v. Nergesh Meerza, a case of forced resignation adjudicated by the Supreme Court
of India in 1981, is one of relevance. In this instance, the employee resigned from her position
with Air India after experiencing ongoing harassment and mental stress from her higher officer.
The management of Air India accepted the resignation without investigating the circumstances
behind its submission.

According to the Supreme Court, the employee's resignation was forced upon her by the
pressure of her higher officer and was not voluntary. The employee's resignation was not
voluntary, according to the court, and thus was not binding on the employee. The employee
should be reinstated with back pay and seniority, the court further instructed. This decision
established the rule that an employee's resignation is invalid if it is submitted under duress or
pressure, and the employee is then entitled to all the benefits that would have been due to him
or her if they had stayed to work.

State of Gujarat v. Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel & Others (2006)

In this instance, the police constable who filed the petition offered his resignation as a
consequence of mounting pressure from his superiors. He was not permitted to reverse the
resignation because it had been accepted. According to the Gujarat High Court, the resignation
was forced upon the employee and was not voluntary. The state's government was ordered by
the court to restore the petitioner and provide all related perks.

State of Karnataka & Ors. v. K.T. Plantations Pvt. Ltd. (2011)

The Supreme Court ruled in this instance that a resignation offered under duress could continue
to be accepted if it was afterward confirmed by the employee under no duress. The Court stated
that in certain situations, it would be up to the employee to provide evidence that the departure
was not voluntary.

The State of Madras v. Venkateshwaran (1959)

In this case, the Madras High Court ruled that even if a resignation was forced upon an
employee, it would still be acceptable if the individual truly intended to leave and there was no
compulsion or undue influence at the place.

Page 6 of 14
3) CASE II

Principal employer hired contractual employees for a contractual period.

After the expiry of contract between contractor and principal employer,
employees were terminated orally by contractor. Employees raised an
industrial dispute on the ground that they were employees of principal
employer? What are the contractual employees justified in raising an
industrial dispute? Explain.
Response 1:

CASE 1: The contractual Employees were not justified in raising the industrial dispute.

Assumption: The contractual employee was hired on a fixed-term employment contract.

Explanation: In accordance with a fixed-term contract, an employee's employment should

have a predetermined termination date. There is no need for either party to give notice of
termination prior to the contract automatically expiring on the end date. An employee may
offer their employer a Resignation Letter if they wish to terminate the contract early and are
able to do so without facing consequences. For instance, if an employment contract has a
specified duration of three years, the employment will stop once the three years have passed.

Conclusion: Because they were on a fixed-employment contract, which would have already
mentioned the termination date of the employment without a notice period, contractual
employees were not justified in bringing the labor dispute against the major employer.

CASE 2: The Contractual employees were justified in raising the industrial dispute.

Assumption: The contractual employees demanded an experience certificate

Explanation: According to section 56 of the contractual labor act “Every concerned contractor
should issue, on demand, experience certificate in such form as may be prescribed by the
appropriate government, to the contract labor giving details of the work performed by such
contract labor”.

Conclusion: Contractual employees have a valid reason for bringing up the labor dispute
because they have verbally terminated the major employer despite demanding experience from
them.

Page 7 of 14
Response 2:

Contractual employees are employees of the principal employer.

Explanation: According to the contract labor act, section 45 subsection 1

a) Every establishment in which 50 or more contract laborers are employed or were employed
on any day of the preceding 12 months through contract.

Hence, the major employer may be seen as the contractual worker's "real" employer since they
would have considerable control over the worker's work through direct supervision, prescribing
working conditions and hours, and establishing performance criteria.

Conclusion: Regardless of whether the contractor terminated their employment, the

contractual employees in this situation may have legal standing to bring a labor dispute against
the principal employer if they can show that the latter was, in fact, their employer. Claims for
backpay, benefits and other employment-related rights and protections may fall under this
category.

Page 8 of 14
3.1) CASE PRECEDENTS FOR CASE II

Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers:

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that even if contractual workers' services are obtained
through a contractor, if they are performing work for the major employer, they are deemed
employees of the principal employer and are entitled to the same salary and benefits as regular
employees.

International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers' Union:

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that just because a worker is employed through a
contractor does not mean he cannot claim to be an employee of the principal employer if he
meets the relevant standards.

Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen:

The Supreme Court ruled in this case that the hiring of contractual workers through a contractor
cannot be used as a ruse to deny them the benefits to which they would have been entitled if
they had been directly employed by the principal employer.

Based on these precedents, it can be deduced that if the contractual employees in the preceding
case were working directly under the control and supervision of the principal employer, they
could be considered employees of the principal employer and entitled to the same benefits and
protections as regular employees.

Page 9 of 14
4) CASE III

I have recently joined an establishment wherein there had been a serious

issue of industrial relations and the management has terminated the services
of some of the workers who have raised their industrial disputes which are
pending for adjudication. While going through the files I apprehend that
they may be granted reinstatement and back wages. I am anxious to know
as to what are the factors for granting reinstatement more particularly with
back wages?

Employment law defines reinstatement as placing an employee back into a job he lost without
losing seniority or other job benefits. The Tribunal or a National Industrial Tribunal directs to
grant reinstatement to the worker in any case where he has been wrongfully terminated. Back
wages, on the other hand, refer to the amount of salary or wages that the employee would have
earned if they had not been wrongly terminated.

According to Industrial Relations Code, 2020

Where in any case, a Tribunal or a National Industrial Tribunal by its award Payment of directs
reinstatement of any worker and the employer prefers any proceedings against such full wages
to award in a High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such worker,
during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court,
proceedings in full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance
admissible to him higher Courts. under any rule, if the worker had not been employed in any
establishment during such period and an affidavit by such worker had been filed to that effect
in such Court:

Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court that
such worker had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any
such period or part thereof, the Court shall order that no wages shall be payable under this
section for such period or part, as the case may be.

A labor court or an industrial tribunal will normally decide whether to give reinstatement with
back pay to terminated workers who have brought up labor concerns. Below are some of the
criteria that may be taken into account by the court or tribunal when making a decision
regarding reinstatement with back wages, depending on the particular facts of the case:

Page 10 of 14
The nature of the dispute: The tribunal or court will take into account the type of dispute that
resulted in the termination of the employee's employment. The court may be more likely to
approve reinstatement with back pay if the issue involves unfair labor practices or a breach of
labor laws.

Time since the conflict began: The amount of time since the dispute began may also be a
factor. If the issue has been pending for a long period, the court may be more willing to grant
reinstatement with back wages.

The duration of employment of the employee may be taken into consideration by the court
when determining whether to reinstate the employee with back pay.

The employee's conduct: The court may consider the employee's conduct during the dispute
and termination process. If the employee acted in a reasonable and appropriate manner, the
court may be more inclined to grant reinstatement with back wages.

The employee's behaviour: During the dispute and termination processes, the court may take
the employee's behaviour into consideration. The court might be more likely to approve
reinstatement with back pay if the employee behaved in a reasonable and appropriate manner.

The availability of alternative remedies: The court may also consider whether there are
alternative remedies that could adequately compensate the employee, such as compensation or
damages. If there are no adequate alternative remedies, the court may be more inclined to grant
reinstatement with back wages.

It is important to note that these factors are not exhaustive, and the specific circumstances of
each case will be considered by the court or tribunal when deciding on reinstatement with back
wages.

The employer should ensure that the workers are properly supervised and cared for. The
management must follow the proper procedures for dismissing an employee, or else the
employee may succeed in court and be forced to pay back wages in full or in part for the time
he was not working at all.

As per the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, which governs industrial relations in India, the
factors that are considered for granting reinstatement with back wages are:

The nature of the industrial dispute: The Code recognizes different types of industrial
disputes, such as disputes related to wages, terms of employment, working conditions, and
discipline, among others. The nature of the dispute will be a key factor in determining whether
the employee is entitled to reinstatement with back wages.
Page 11 of 14
The length of service of the employee: The Code recognizes the length of service of an
employee as a relevant factor for determining reinstatement with back wages. If the employee
has worked for a significant period, the court or tribunal may be more inclined to grant
reinstatement with back wages.

The reason for termination: The Code recognizes that an employer can terminate an
employee for valid reasons, such as misconduct or poor performance. However, if the
termination is found to be unjustified, the court or tribunal may be more inclined to grant
reinstatement with back wages.

The conduct of the employee: The Code recognizes that the conduct of the employee during
the dispute and termination process is a relevant factor for determining reinstatement with back
wages. If the employee has acted in good faith and has not engaged in any misconduct, the
court or tribunal may be more inclined to grant reinstatement with back wages.

The financial position of the employer: The Code recognizes that the financial position of
the employer is a relevant factor for determining reinstatement with back wages. If the
employer is in a position to pay back wages and provide benefits to the employee, the court or
tribunal may be more inclined to grant reinstatement with back wages.

The presence of other remedies: If there are other options that could fairly compensate the
employee, such as compensation or damages, the court may also take it into account. The court
might be more likely to award reinstatement with back wages if there are no suitable
alternatives.

It is significant to note that these considerations are not all-inclusive, and the court or tribunal
will take the particulars of each case into account when determining whether to grant
reinstatement with back wages.

Page 12 of 14
4.1) CASE PRECEDENTS FOR CASE III

Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand and Ors:

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that if a worker's job was terminated without due process
and for no legal reason, he is entitled to be reinstated with back wages.

R. Vishwanathan v. The Management of Madras Rubber Factory Ltd:

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that reinstatement with back wages should be the norm
rather than the exception, and that it should be provided to workers who were fired for no
reason.

Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Managing Director, Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation

Ltd:

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that reinstatement with back pay should be granted to
workers who were fired without respecting natural justice principles and without a good reason.

Based on these precedents, it can be deduced that if workers who have raised industrial disputes
and been terminated are determined to have been terminated without due process of law and
for no justifiable reason, they may be entitled to be reinstated with back wages. The decision
to grant reinstatement and back wages would be based on the facts and circumstances of each
case, and would be taken by the labour court or industrial tribunal after taking into account all
relevant elements.

Page 13 of 14
REFRENCES

• https://www.duranschulze.com/employment-contract-validity-of-employees-resignation/

• https://www.employmentlawgroup.com/in-the-news/articles/supreme-court-offers-

practical-rule-forced-resignations/

• https://labour.gov.in/sites/default/files/THEINDUSTRIALDISPUTES_ACT1947_0.pdf

• https://www.simpliance.in/blog/the-industrial-relations-code-2020-an-analysis/

• https://clc.gov.in/clc/acts-rules/contract-labour-regulation-abolition-act-1970

• https://iclg.com/practice-areas/employment-and-labour-laws-and-regulations/india

Page 14 of 14