Jui Kalap- 22

LABOUR
LAWS
Laws covered:
1. Employee Compensation Act (1923)
2. Industrial Disputes Act
MARUTI SUZUKI
Case background
July- Dec 2012
Permanent (1,100) ---------> Temporary (1,400)
₹18,000 ₹5,500- Unskilled
₹7,000- ITI Diploma

Skilled
1yr- Apprenticeship
3yrs- Trainee

Working conditions
No overtime
Medical
pay
benefits
Pay deductions
Bus Service
on leave
Paid leave
No breaks
MARUTI SUZUKI
Union demands
5× inc. in salary
Monthly conveyance allowance ₹10,000
Monthly laundry allowance ₹ 3,000
Cheaper housing loans
Corporate gifts
Paid vacation- 4 weeks ---> 7 weeks
Sick leave- 40 days
Casual leave- 75 days

The incident- 18th July 2012

HR Manager killed
Approx 100 management personnel injured
9 policemen injured
MARUTI SUZUKI
Acts applicable
Prohibition of strikes or lockouts Sec 22

Penalty for illegal strikes or lockouts Sec 26

Judgement
Several criminal proceedings
Immediate imprisonment of identified
workers
Non payment in duration of lockout
Changes in hiring terms of Contractual
workers
TCS VS SELVINTH GNANESH JOSHUA
Case Background
Selvinth Gnanesh Joshua- Assistant Consultant
(Project Manager)
Date of joining- 15/09/2005
Date of notice- 22/12/2014
Date of last drawn salary- 19/02/2015, ₹73,011
Date of termination- 21/01/2015

Laws Applicable
Definition of Workman Sec 2(s)- duties vs designation
LIFO principle Sec 25G
Duties of Conciliation officer Sec 12- 14 days
Conditions of service to remain unchanged during proceedings Sec 33-
maintain status quo.
Failure report sec 12(4), otherwise continue with proceedings
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
V/S SMT. BIDAMI AND ORS
Case Background
Claimants: Respondants:
Pappu Ram (Deceased) Gopi Ram (Employer of the deceased)
Bidami Bai (Widow) Bhimsen (Owner of the offending vehicle)
Mamta (Child) Unnamed driver of the offending vehicle
Rekha (Child) Insurer of the offending vehicle (New India
Munna (Child) Assurance)

Date of accident: 30/07/2003

MACT settlement date (amt): January 2006 (Rs 4,60,333)
Employee Compensation settlement claim date: June 2006
Employee Comensation settlement date (amt): 31/03/2008 (Rs 3,46,368 + 1,93,866)
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
V/S SMT. BIDAMI AND ORS
Laws Applicable/ Reason for dispute
Employee Compensation Act Sec 30- Appeals
Appeal to HC against double settlement award by Commissioner
Citing 3 yr gap
Employee Compensation Act Sec 10- Notice & Claim
2 yr window

Judgement
Delay approved
Dismissal of the appeal of the insurance company
Entitlement to compensation under both Acts- no correlation between Motor
Vehicles Act & Employee Compensation Act
RAJESH RANJAN V. STATE OF
JHARKHAND AND ORS
Case Background
Claimant: Rajesh Ranjan (Govt. school teacher)
Respondant: Employer (Jharkhand State govt.)

Laws Applicable/ Reason for dispute

Sec 2 (1) (n)- Definition of "employee" under this act
Schedule II- Nature of occupation (Hazardous)
Judgement
Rejection of govt. argument
Interpretation made clear "broader"- any person employed for wages in
connection to work
THANK
YOU!