Introduction to Labour ............................................................................................................................................................................................................

2
1. Niemla Textile Mills v The 2nd Punjab Tribunal AIR 1957 SC 329 ................................................................................................................... 2
2. Excel Wear v Union of India (1978) 4 SCC 224.................................................................................................................................................. 2
3. PUDR v Union of India (1982) 2 LLJ 454 (SC) .................................................................................................................................................. 2
Trade Unionism .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
4. Jay Engineering Works v State of West Bengal AIR 1968 Cal 407 – gherao ...................................................................................................... 3
5. Rangaswami v Registrar of Trade Unions AIR 1962 Mad 231 – registration ...................................................................................................... 3
6. Bokajan Cement Corpn Employees’ Union v Cement Corpn of India Ltd. (2004) 1 SCC 142 - membership..................................................... 4
7. Balmer Lawrie Workers Union, Bombay v Balmer Lawrie and Company Ltd (1985) I LLJ 314 – (Recognition) ............................................. 4
8. Vidyasagar Institute of Mental Health v Hospital Employees Union (2006) ILLJ 781 (Del) – demonstration, immunity, strike ........................ 4
9. Bharat Kumar v State of Kerala AIR 1997 Ker 292 – Bandh .............................................................................................................................. 4
10. Communist Party of India v Bharat Kumar (1998) 1 SCC 201 ............................................................................................................................ 5
11. Kameshwar Prasad v State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 1166 – Demonstration by govt servants ............................................................................... 5
Appropriate Govt. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5
12. Steel Authority of India Ltd. v National Union of Water Front Workers (2001) 7 SCC 1 ................................................................................... 5
Industry ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5
13. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v A.S. Rajappa (1978) 2 SCC 548 .............................................................................................. 5
14. Physical Research Laboratory v K.G. Sharma (1997) 4 SCC 257 ....................................................................................................................... 6
15. General Manager Telecom v A Srinivasa Rao (1997) 8 SCC 767 ....................................................................................................................... 6
16. All India Radio v Santosh Kumar (1998) 3 SCC 237 .......................................................................................................................................... 6
17. Coir Board, Ernakulam and Cochin v Indira Devi (1998) 3 SCC 259 ................................................................................................................. 7
18. Agricultural Produce Market Committee v Ashok Harikuni (2000) 8 SCC 61 .................................................................................................... 7
19. State of UP v Jai Bir Singh (2005) 5 SCC 1 ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
Industrial Dispute Case ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8
20. Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v DTE AIR 1958 SC 353 ............................................................................................................................ 8
21. Workmen v Dharampal Premchand (Saughandi) AIR 1966 SC 182 ................................................................................................................... 8
Workmen cases ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
22. Dharangadhara Chemical Works v Management AIR 1957 SC 264 ................................................................................................................... 8
23. Diwan Mohideen Sahib v Industrial Tribunal, Madras AIR 1966 SC 370 ........................................................................................................... 8
24. Workmen of Nilgiri Cooperative Marketing Society v State of Tamil Nadu (2004) 3 SCC 514 ......................................................................... 9
25. HussainBhai v Alath Factory Employees Union (1978) 4 SCC 257 .................................................................................................................... 9
26. SK Verma v Mahesh Chandra (1983) II LLJ 429 1983 (4) SCC 214 .................................................................................................................. 9
27. HR Adhyantaya v Sandoz (India) Ltd. (1994) 5 SCC 737 ................................................................................................................................... 9
28. SK Maini v M/S Carona Sahu Company Ltd. (1994) 3 SCC 510 ...................................................................................................................... 10
29. Heavy Engineering Corporation v Presiding Officer, Labour Court (1996) 11 SCC 236 .................................................................................. 10
30. Workmen of the Canteen of Coates of India Ltd v Coates of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 547 .............................................................................. 10
State Prescription of Standards ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
31. Workmen of Dewan Tea Estate v Their Management AIR 1964 SC 1458 ........................................................................................................ 10
32. Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. v The Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. (1976) I LLJ 493 (SC)..................................................... 10
33. Associated Cement Companies v Their Workmen AIR 1960 SC 56 ................................................................................................................. 11
34. Kairbetta Estate v Rajamanickam AIR 1960 SC 893 ......................................................................................................................................... 11
35. Hariprasad Shiv Shankar Shukla v A.D. Divelkar AIR 1957 SC 121 ................................................................................................................ 11
36. Uptron v Shammi Bhan (1998) 6 SCC 538 ........................................................................................................................................................ 11
37. Anand Bihari and Others v RSRTC and another 1991 Lab IC 494 .................................................................................................................... 12
38. Orissa Textiles & Stell Ltd. V State of Orissa 2002 Lab IC 570(SC) ................................................................................................................ 12
39. Rohtas Industries v Union (1976) 2 SCC 82 sec 10A ID Act, not an industrial dispute – strike........................................................................ 12
40. Gujarat Steel Tubes v Mazdoor Sabha AIR 1980 SC 1896 – strike ................................................................................................................... 12
41. Vidyasagar Institute of Mental Health v Hospital Employees Union (2006) ILLJ 781 (Del) – demonstration, immunity, strike ...................... 12
42. TK Rangarajan v Govt of Tamil Nadu AIR 2003 SC 3032 – strike by govt employees .................................................................................... 13
Remuneration for Labour .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 13
43. Randhir Singh v. UOI 1982 AIR 879................................................................................................................................................................. 13

1
 44. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. UOI (1982) 3 SCC 235..................................................................................................................... 13
45. Mackinnon Mackenzie v. Audrey D’Costa 1987 AIR 1281 .............................................................................................................................. 13
46. State of AP v. G. Sreenivasa Rao 1989 SCR (1)1000 ........................................................................................................................................ 13
47. Standard Vacuum Refining Co. of India v Their Workmen AIR 1961 SC 895 ................................................................................................. 13
48. Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd v Their Workmen AIR 1955 SC 33 .............................................................................................................................. 13

Introduction to Labour
1. Niemla Textile Mills v The 2nd Punjab Tribunal AIR 1957 SC 329
- Disputes b/w A and their workmen were referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication- by the Appropriate Govt.- under the
provisions of the ID Act. The A’s contended that the reference to the Tribunal was bad because:
o The Act was ultra vires the Constitution: violated A-14 and 19 (1) (f) and (g)
o The Industrial Tribunals are legislating in the guise of adjudication- amounts to delegation which is not competent to the
Central Legislature to do.
o ‘Industry’ comprised industrial and non-industrial concerns- therefore the Act was not within the legislative competence of
the Central Legislature under Entry 29, List III of the 7 th Schedule to the GOI Act, 1935.
- Held:
Not unconstitutional:
 Basic idea underlying all the provisions of the Act is the settlement of industrial disputes and the promotion of
industrial peace.
 So that production may not be interrupted- and the community in general may be benefited.
 The Appropriate Govt. therefore, has the discretion in the matter of making the reference to one or other
Authorities under the Act and also in the matter of carrying out the various provisions of the Act (incl. curtailment
or extension of the period ‘of preparation of the award of the Tribunal, having regard to the exigencies of the
situation and the objects to be achieved.
o Industrial Tribunal while settling, lay down certain general principles to be followed:
 In regard to the determination of bonus, reinstatement of dismissed or discharged employee, and other allied
topics.
 Main objective was to promote industrial peace.
 But, these principles/rules of conduct, though applied as precedent while adjudicating are not rules of law and
don’t amount to legislation.
o Act is not ultra vires the Legislature
 Matters included within the definition of the term- “industry” are within the legislative competence of the Central
Leg.- E-27 & 29, List III.

2. Excel Wear v Union of India (1978) 4 SCC 224

- EW is a partnership firm with 400 workmen- manufacturing garments for export.
- Relations b/w employer and workmen got very strained- workmen became very militant, aggressive and violent- indulged in
unjustifiable and illegal strikes.
- Various incidents have been mentioned in the Writ by the P- however, those facts seriously disputed- So, Court didn’t give a view
either way.
- P’s contention: Contended violation of FR- unreasonable restriction- it became almost impossible to carry on the business. P’s
issued notice to R2 (Govt. of Maharashtra) for previous approval for intended closure (under S-250 (o) (1)- which was refused on
grounds that prejudicial to public interest.
- Labour Unions: Right to close down a business is not an integral part of the right to carry on a business- not an FR.
- Held:
o Right to close down a business can’t be treated at par with the right to start/carry on a business. But, the LU’s approach
also wrong.
o Not an absolute right and can be restricted by law in interest of general public.
o S-25 (o) (2) doesn’t require the giving of reasons in the order- so an unreasonable order was possible to be passed because
of the unreasonableness of the law- Order wasn’t subject to scrutiny by any higher authority in appeal or revision- can’t be
reviewed.
o Court held it to be an unreasonable restriction- not giving effect to A-39(1) or 41.
o Also, declared S-25(o) and 25R (so far as it relates to the awarding of punishment) constitutionally bad and invalid for
violation of A-19(1).
o Didn’t comment on merits since order fell under constitutional invalidity.

3. PUDR v Union of India (1982) 2 LLJ 454 (SC)

- Writ petition through a letter from a social scientist (protecting democratic rights organization) investigating into several Projects-
complained of violation of various labour laws by the R’s- seeking interference by the SC to render social justice by means of
appropriate directions to the affected workmen.
2
 - SC issued notice of UOI, Delhi Admin and DDA.
- Allegations in the petition:
o Minimum Wages Act: Contractors engaged workers through ‘jamadars’ who brought them from different parts of India
(Rajasthan, UP, Orissa) and paid less than the minimum wage per day per worker and not to workmen direct.
o Equal Remuneration Act: women workmen were being paid less- balance of amount being misappropriated by Jamadars.
o Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act: violation- resulted in deprivation and exploitation of workers and denial
of their right to proper living condition, medical and other facilities under the Act.
o Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act- Even though been a while,
hadn’t been implemented by Contractors.
- Held:
o Court allowed PIL as FR violation.
o Hereafter, any contract b/w 2 public sector companies must ensure suitable provisions in the contract that the wage will be
paid by the contractors to the workmen directly w/o intervention of any jamadars.
o Contractor must ensure that no amount by way of commission or otherwise if deducted/recovered by the jamadars from the
wages of workmen.
o Whenever construction work is being carried out- must institute an effective system of periodic inspections coupled with
occasional surprise inspections by the higher officers in order to ensure no violations. If violations found- immediate
action. Shouldn’t have to wait for formal complaint by workmen to be lodged.

Trade Unionism
4. Jay Engineering Works v State of West Bengal AIR 1968 Cal 407 – gherao
- HC didn’t approve the technique of “gherao” as a legal means to redress grievances of workers.
- Two kinds of gherao:
o Ordinary- encirclement/blockade of industrial establishment- including office factory workshop or residence-
generally a person of managerial position- complete or partial.
o Gates/Doors are blocked, preventing engress and ingress- might be on a public thoroughfare/land belonging to
industrial establishment- encirclement in depth- forcible possession of the industrial establishment and ouster of the
real owner/manager.
o Court defined it as a physical blockade of a target (may be place or person- usually managerial staff) either by
encirclement or forcible occupation. This might be complete or partial- invariably accompanied by wrongful restraint
& confinement and sometimes criminal trespass, mischief to person/property and unlawful assembly.
- Here, the employees gheraod the employers 5-6 times, obstructed the passage of personnel and goods, didn’t even let them
have food, confined to a small space w/o fans. Were beaten, abused and not allowed to answer calls of nature. Employers called
the police, but didn’t come on grounds that they can’t intervene unless under instructions from Labour Ministry.
- What is Gherao: The issue was whether the Act was done by the employees a gherao or something more than that. Court said
that definition of gherao wasn’t exhaustive- but here there were hostile manifestations- take crude/obnoxious forms involving
mental/physical torture. Object was to compel them to submit to the demands w/o recourse to the law- violent means- violation
of IPC offences.
- Lawful? : unlawful keeping in mind IPC violations.
- Guilty? Must be determined in other proceedings and forums.
- Impugned Circulars: unlawful
- Police failed to discharge duties: Yes, induced by directions/instructions in impugned circulars.
- Held: If a person/group wrongfully confines another person/group, it is elementary that it comes under S-399/340 read with S-
341/342 of IPC.
- Case cannot be saved by S-17 of TU or any other provision.

5. Rangaswami v Registrar of Trade Unions AIR 1962 Mad 231 – registration

- Petition under S-11 of TU Act seeking to set aside the order of the Registrar of Trade Union, Madras, refusing to register the union
of employees of the Madras Raj Bhawan as a trade union under the TU Act.
- Employment included persons doing domestic and other services, maintenance of Gov. household, attending to his family’s and
guests needs.
- Two main categories of employees:
o Those whose services are more or less domestic in nature. Their services are pensionable and governed by certain rules
framed by the Govt. (102 workers)
o Those who formed part of the work charge establishment consisting of gardeners. Not pensionable, but gratuity given. (33
workers)
- Object: better service conditions and facilitation of collective bargaining. Applied claiming services not to be purely domestic
service and so could be registered.
- However, Registrar felt that before a Union was to be registered, members must be connected with a trade/industry/business of an
employer (S-4 TU) and here that wasn’t fulfilled.

3
- Their services are purely personal and so rejection was correct.

6. Bokajan Cement Corpn Employees’ Union v Cement Corpn of India Ltd. (2004) 1 SCC 142 - membership
- Whether an employee as a result of cessation of employment would lose his right to continue as a member of the Trade Union? (S-
6(e) of TU)
- In view of the provisions in the Constitution of the trade union and in the absence of any provision providing for cessation of
membership on employment- cannot be held that an employee would cease to be a member of the TU on termination of his
employment.
- The idea is to promote workers’ rights and should be done so liberally. We must construe these liberally. Once you become a
member, you become a member for life. All you have to do is put down cessation for TUs.

7. Balmer Lawrie Workers Union, Bombay v Balmer Lawrie and Company Ltd (1985) I LLJ 314 – (Recognition)
- 2 unions of workmen employed in Balmer are at loggerheads and inter se rivalry.
- A- (non-recognized union)- filed Writ challenging the constitutional validity of S-20(2) read with Schedule 1 of Maharashtra
Recognition of TU & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act- impleaded recognized trade union. (A-19- can’t compel them to
join the recognized union)
- Background Facts:
o A settlement was arrived at b/w employer and recognized union resolving a number of pending disputes. (Clause 17-
Arrears to be paid within 2 months from signing the settlement- Co. will collect 15% of gross arrears payable to each
employee as contribution to the Union Fund within 3 days)
o Non-recognized union had an issue with this and informed employer not to do this as compulsory deduction was unfair and
unconstitutional to the non-members.
- Court held that where there are multiple unions, the union with the largest membership of workmen will be clothed with the status
of recognized union—and sole bargaining agent—Why? Assumption that recognized union represents all the workmen in the
industrial undertaking or in the industry.
- What the Representative Union must keep in mind?
o Obligatory to act in a manner as to not discriminate b/w members and other workmen of undertaking who are not
members.
o The settlement in question was binding on all workmen of undertaking.
o Neither the representative union nor the employer can discriminate b/w members of representative union and other
workmen wrt both benefits, advantages, disadvantages or liabilities arising out of settlements in any proceeding- to which
representative party shall be equally applicable to each workman in undertaking.
- No trace of discrimination b/w members and non both as regards advantages and as regards obligations and liabilities.

8. Vidyasagar Institute of Mental Health v Hospital Employees Union (2006) ILLJ 781 (Del) – demonstration, immunity, strike
- P (hospital) filed suit restraining D (Employees Union) from holding any demonstration and from blocking the ingress and egress of
any person visiting the hospital.
- P also sought declaration that strike threatened by D was illegal. (Here D threatened that if demands weren’t made between them,
they would go on strike)
- Court- D can’t be allowed to disrupt activities, functioning, ingress/egress of visitors and patients and create nuisance by raising
slogans near hospitals where patients need peace and solitude. Peaceful demonstration is fine.
- Strike was held illegal and injunction granted for restraining the D’s from holding any demonstration, dharnas, slogan shouting and
blocking- but allowed to peacefully do so 200m from radius of hospital.
- The court relied on a bunch of principles and held that the strike/demonstration is illegal.
o Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain suit of this nature
o Immunity given under Section 18 does not extend to conduct those acts, which may amount to an offence.
o Peaceful demonstration is a fundamental right.
o It is a legitimate right to make legitimate demands. Trade Union has the right to make demands in a peaceful manner.
o No right to hold demonstrations at the residence of the employer.
o Demonstrations cannot be violent or intimidating in nature.

9. Bharat Kumar v State of Kerala AIR 1997 Ker 292 – Bandh

- P seeks relief of declaration that calling for and holding of what is a ‘bandh’ is unconstitutional and hence illegal- FR violation and
DPSP.
- P’s argue that by calling a bandh citizens are prevented from attending to their avocations and traders from opening and attending to
work in factories- leading to loss in production resulting in national loss. They also indulge in violent acts of vandalism of Govt.
property – also cars etc.
- P’s argue that it is a right- democracy.
- Held:
4
 o No political party/organization can claim that it is entitled to paralyze the industry and commerce in the entire State and
prevent the citizens from exercising their FR’s or performing their duties for the benefit of the State.
o Unreasonable and illegitimate exercise of FR.
o Unconstitutional since not in interest if nation, but tend to retard the progress.
o Destruction of private and public property- provided to compensate- State can’t recoup the loss.
o Therefore unconstitutional, petition allowed.
- We have the freedom of expression- so we do it via bandh. Court said that ya okay, but not in such a way that it infringes the FR of
someone else. It has become synonymous with violence.

10. Communist Party of India v Bharat Kumar (1998) 1 SCC 201

- Whether HC was justified in holding distinction b/w bandh and general strike?
- Held:
o Yes, there is a well-made out distinction.
o Bandhs affect the FR’s of citizens as whole- and this can’t be subservient to FR of one person. Strikes on the other hand
are not so detrimental to FR’s to society at large.

11. Kameshwar Prasad v State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 1166 – Demonstration by govt servants
- Constitutional Validity of r.4-a which was introduced into the Bihar Govt. Servants’ Conduct Rules by a notification of the Gov. of
Bihar: “No Govt. servant being allowed to participate in any demonstration/strike in connection with any matter pertaining to his
conditions of service.”
- Held:
o Allow the appeal in part and grant declaration that rule in the form in which it is now is violative of the A’s rights under
19(1) (a) and (b) and should be struck down.
o Only necessary that the rule in so far as it prohibits the strike cannot be struck down since there is no FR to resort to strike.
- Then why have a separate Article only for them? If the demonstration is a peaceful one that will be allowed, but if it’s violating any
law, that won’t be allowed- A-33.

Appropriate Govt.
12. Steel Authority of India Ltd. v National Union of Water Front Workers (2001) 7 SCC 1
- What is the true and correct import of the expression- “appropriate government” mentioned in Clause (a) of S-2(1) of the Contract
Labour Regulation and Abolition Act.
- It defined it as “any industry carried on under the authority of Central Govt.” implied that there was a lack of conferment of power
or permission by the CG to the Govt. Company or undertaking could disable such company/undertaking to carry on industry in
question.
- However, being instrumentality/agency for the CG did not itself amount to having authority of CG to carry on that particular
industry.
- Court had to be satisfied that particular industry in question was carried on by or under authority of CG.

Industry
- 1950-1963- Wide interpretation to ‘Industry”
- 1963-1978- Narrowing the scope.
- 1978- Bangalore reversed this trend- wide interpretation given again + test laid down.

13. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v A.S. Rajappa (1978) 2 SCC 548
- Issue: Whether BWSSB will fall under the definition of ‘industry’+ what is an ‘industry’ under ID Act? Judges behave like legal
crusaders and go into the depths and dig out what ‘industry’ really is.
- Industry under S-2(j) has a wide import:- (Triple Test)
o one where there is a systematic activity
o organized by co-operation b/w employer and employee (the direct and substantive element is chimerical- on its own
trip)
o for production and distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not
spiritual/religious but inclusive of material things/services geared to celestial bliss- eg- making of largescale prasad.
o Absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant (be the venture in public, joint sectors etc.)
o The true focus is functional and decisive test is the nature of the activity with special emphasis on employer-employee
relations.
o If the organization is a trade/business it doesn’t cease to be one because of philanthropy animating the undertaking.
- Although S-2(j) uses words of widest amplitude in its two limbs- their meaning cannot be magnified to overreach itself.
o ‘Undertaking’ must suffer a contextual and associational shrinkage, so also, service calling and the like.

5
 o This yields the inference that all organizations in I, although not trade/business may still be ‘industry’ provided the nature
of the activity (namely, the employer-employee basis bears resemblance to what we find in trade/business. This takes into
the fold of ‘industry’ analogous to the carrying on of ‘trade or business’.
o All features, other than the methodology of carrying on the activity viz. in organizing the co-operation between employee,
may be dissimilar. It does not matter, if on the employment terms there is analogy.
- Application of these guidelines should not stop short of their logical reach by invocation of creeds, cults or inner sense of
incongruity or ouster sense of motivation for or resultant of the economic operations.
o The ideology of the Act being industrial peace, regulation and workmen- the range of this statutory must inform the reach
of the statutory definition.
o Nothing less, nothing more- consequences are:
 Professions
 Clubs
 Educational Institutions
 Co-operative
 Charitable Projects
 Other kindred adventures fulfilling the triple test.
o If in a pious or altruistic mission many employ themselves free or for a small honoraria- drawn by sharing in the
purpose/cause- such as lawyers running free legal aid free or at nominal costs and those who serve are not engaged for
remuneration or on the master-servant relationship basis- then it is not an industry even if stray servants (manual or
technical) are hired.
o However, other undertakings like acts of generosity or development projects are not saved by ‘industry’.
o Research labs in simple ventures- exception.
- Dominant Nature Test
o Where a complex of activities (some which qualify for exemption, others don’t) involves employees on the total
undertakings some of whom are not ‘workmen’ are not producers of goods if isolated- even then- the predominant nature
of the service and the integrated nature of the depts. Will be ‘industry’ although those workmen may not benefit by the
status.
o Sovereign function- strictly understood alone qualify for exemption- not the welfare activities or economic adventures
undertaking by the govt./stat body.
o If depts. discharging sovereign function are units substantially severable, then come within S-2(j).
o Constitutional and competently enacted legislative provisions may well remove from the scope of the Act- categories
which otherwise may be covered.

14. Physical Research Laboratory v K.G. Sharma (1997) 4 SCC 257

- R appointed by PRL as Scientific Glass Blower (1948-76) then transferred to Photography Documentation Services- post which was
non-technical and administrative.
- Asked to retire at 58 and not 60-writ-rejected- complaint to Labour Commissioner.
- Whether it constituted being an ‘industry’?
- PRL is an institution under the Govt. Dept. of Space- engaged in pure research in space science. Labour Court had recorded a
finding that research work carried on by PRL is not connected with production supply or distribution of material goods/services +
not for the benefit/use of others—occasionally published but never sold—therefore, no material to prove commercial value.
- Not industry:
o Object: not to satisfy human wants/needs.
o More an institution discharging govt. functions and domestic rather than commercial enterprise.
o Even though systematic manner with help of employees- not- not producing/distributing services intended to satisfy human
want.

15. General Manager Telecom v A Srinivasa Rao (1997) 8 SCC 767

- Contention of A: Reference incompetent since Telecommunication Dept. is not an ‘industry’.
- It was for being engaged in commercial activity- Dept. was not engaging in discharging any sovereign functions of State.

16. All India Radio v Santosh Kumar (1998) 3 SCC 237

- Whether the AI Radio and Doordarshan are ‘Industries’ within the meaning of ID.
- R’s were employees- clerks or linemen/watchmen and other casual workers working as employees of either AIR or Doordarshan
kendras.
- Challenged their orders of termination or non-regularisation was granted by the first Court, and then appeal against that order was
dismissed by the HC
- Appeal was they discharge sovereign functions of the State and therefore are not industries.

6
- However, not classified as sovereign functions as they carry on commercial activity for profit by getting commercial ads telecast or
broadcast through their various kendras and stations by charging a fee. Ads and serials being telecast for appropriate charges.
- BWS case specifically mentions that absence of a profit motive doesn’t make a difference but this is a case dealing with the
commercial nature of the function.

17. Coir Board, Ernakulam and Cochin v Indira Devi (1998) 3 SCC 259
- Whether ‘Coir Board’ is an Industry according to the ID Act.
- Facts:
o A was set up under the Coir Industry Act, 1953, for the development of the coir industry + purpose to levy a customs duty
on coir fibre, yarn and products exported from India.
o Coir Board had employed certain temporary clerks and typists who were discharged.
o Claim: Services could only be terminated under the ID Act provisions.
- Rule
o One view held that the widest possible connotation should be given to the word ‘industry’ since ID Act was welfare
legislation for the welfare of workers.
o By eliminating “profit maximization” as the ultimate aim of industries, charitable hospitals giving free medicines also
within the ambit. This is problematic because they are unable to cope with the requirements of ID- led to cessation of many
welfare activities- depriving general community of considerable benefit and employees of their livelihood.
o Another view: Slightly more rigid- Educational Institution was not industry.
o Uncertainty in applying landmark case of Bangalore Water Supplies, so necessary to re-examine it.
o Instead of leading to industrial peace and welfare of the community (extended def. of industry), the application of ID to
organizations which weren’t intended to be set up under the machinery of the Act may do more damage than good- not just
to the organizations but also the employees (jobs).
- Application
o Function of Coir Board is to promote coir industry, open markets for it and provide facilities to make the coir industry’s
market more marketable- not set up to run any industry itself.
o Applying Bangalore, it would be called ‘industry’
 It is an organization where there are employers and employees
 The organization does some useful work for the benefit of others.
- Court held, however, that such a sweeping test was not contemplated by ID Act and not every organization which does useful work
and has employees should be an industry.

18. Agricultural Produce Market Committee v Ashok Harikuni (2000) 8 SCC 61

- Issue: Whether A established under State Act is an ‘industry’. If yes, will the employee of the State Act be governed by the Central
Act? Also, whether the State Act would override the Central Act because State Act received assent of President of India.
- Merely because an enterprise is statutory it would not take it outside the ambit of ‘industry’- mere fact that some employees are
govt. servants would make no difference.
- The true test is to find out dominant object for which functionaries are working.
- None of the activities of A are sovereign in nature, so within definition of industry.
- Sovereign functions- may have very wide ramification but essentially sovereign functions are primary inalienable functions which
only the State could exercise (taxation, police power)
- Object, Reasons and scheme of the Act- here clearly being regulation and control of trading of agricultural produce- therefore not
sovereign. Here, the Preamble, statement of objects and reasons and provisions of the State Act made it clear that the Act dealt with
various facets of regulating activities within the market area with respect to trading in agricultural produce.
- Any enactment/scheme which helps in trading activity is one of the State’s essential functions towards welfare activities. But these
can be done by an NGO or private person as well.
- Hence, none of the activities which the Market Committee performed fall within the ambit of sovereign/inalienable functions of
State. So, an ‘industry’.

19. State of UP v Jai Bir Singh (2005) 5 SCC 1

- Whether Social Forestry Dept. is covered by ‘industry’?
- Employees contended that the decision in BW has been binding precedent for 23 years- complete satisfaction of all in industrial
field- so shouldn’t refer.
- However Court felt that there were compelling reasons to reconsider:
o Wasn’t a unanimous decision- of majority- 2 concurring.
o Majority opinion was only temporary till the Legislature came in to remove vagueness.
o Worker-oriented approach in construing ‘industry’- unmindful of employer and public- aim of statute is to regulate and
harmonize the relationships b/w employers-employees- might have done more damage than good.

7
 o Large number of industrial and labour claims resulting in granting huge amounts of back wages for past years or workers
who had allegedly been retrenched.
o Might be detrimental to private industries.
o Lawyers- even if a modicum of employment is generated- shouldn’t come under Act.
o Sovereign function- should be comprehended to include public welfare activities which the Govt. undertakes as part of
discharge of its constitutional obligations- falling outside ‘industry’.
o So, reconsider now!

Industrial Dispute Case

20. Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v DTE AIR 1958 SC 353
- “Any person” not co-extensive with any workman-potential or otherwise.
- Test: community of interest and person regarding whom dispute is raised must be one in whose employment/non/terms/conditions
the parties to the dispute have a direct or substantial interest.
- Whether or not this direct and substantial interest has been met with? (Depends on facts and circumstances)
- “Any person”- S-2(k)- must be read subject to such limitations and qualifications as arise from the context—limitations being:
o Dispute must be a real dispute b/w the parties to the dispute so as to be capable of settlement or adjudication by one party
to the dispute giving necessary relief to the other.
o Employment/terms/conditions, the parties to the dispute have a direct or substantial interest w/o which can’t be a real
dispute.
- Here, A was not held to be a ‘workman’

21. Workmen v Dharampal Premchand (Saughandi) AIR 1966 SC 182

- R- firm- carries on business as perfumers and tobacconists in Delhi.
- 28th July, 1961- R passed impugned order dismissing the services of 18 employees (left with 45)
- 16th July- 18 who were dismissed had become members of the Mercantile Employees’ Association which is a registered TU in
Delhi.
- 29th- they took up the cause of the dismissed employees and carried the dispute before Conciliation Officer- failed- reference on 6th
Sept.
- In dealing with industrial disputes, industrial adjudication is reluctant to lay down any hard and fast rule or adopt any test of
general/universal application- necessarily to be pragmatic and the test it applies and consideration on which it relies would vary
from case to case.

Workmen cases
22. Dharangadhara Chemical Works v Management AIR 1957 SC 264
- Rann of Kutch- salt manufacturing- DC appointed Agarias for this purpose.
- Whether they are workmen?
- There’s no factory as such- also they work on a seasonal basis (each A would be given a piece of land to make salt)- no fixed
timings, could employ others.
- Court held: You employ agarias and hold close control over their work and that remains true even though they could do whatever
they wanted to (well, not whatever, but you know!)
- Showed a master-servant relationship as supervisors made sure the procedure was followed.
- Supervision & control test is the prima facie test for determining the relationship of employment- nature and extent? Case-to-case. If
a person is employed by the employer and there is an existence in the right in the employer to control the manner in which work is
to be done, and not merely to direct what work was to be done + due control and supervision of the employer- when there subsists
an employer-employee relationship.
- It was a contract of service since they were manufacturing salt- here you can decide the procedure. A contract for service you don’t
instruct the manner of work to be done.

23. Diwan Mohideen Sahib v Industrial Tribunal, Madras AIR 1966 SC 370
- Bidi manufacturing concern- they would give leaves and tobacco to contractor- contractor to workers- workers would cut the leaves
at home and manufacture in c’s factory.
- C was paid minus the cost price of raw materials (this CP mentioned when Diwan gave materials to the contractors- this never
changed)
- C’s were former employees of the Diwan. Factory Act applied to anyone with more than 9 workers and D was trying to escape that.
There was no real sale because if there was, price would fluctuate.
- Issue: Whether these workers are employees of the company?
- There was control over the manner of production- the co. could reject the product if it was not desired quality- so, master-servant
rule was fulfilled.

8
- D’s claim that they were selling raw materials & contractors were selling back finished product did not stand.

24. Workmen of Nilgiri Cooperative Marketing Society v State of Tamil Nadu (2004) 3 SCC 514
- Freelancers would grade the products bought by farmers and put them in different sacks. Buyers could also take the help of
freelancers.
- Issue: whether these freelancers are workmen of the society?
- Triple test:
o Systematic activity (present)
o Employer-Employee relation (in dispute)
o Goods/services (service because they grade and bear loss of farmers)
- The graders & porters were held not to be workmen because there was no ‘employment’ even though they operated from the
society’s compound.
- Society had no control over the working.
- Gifts society gave were out of goodwill.
- The fact that the society paid them and then removed that money from farmers didn’t signify employment.

25. HussainBhai v Alath Factory Employees Union (1978) 4 SCC 257

- Factory- workmen had agreement with contractors—Are they workmen of factory?
- The raw materials, the premises, equipment and end product belonged to the factory.
- Workmen were performing an ‘integral task’ (can be principle tasks or incidental—here it was principle).
- The workers making ropes are depending on the factory for livelihood- so obviously in such a case the dependent should be the
“workmen” of the factory (test by Krishna Iyer- no universal applicability)
- Dubious intermediaries should not dilute this existence of relations b/w workers and factories as all their activities are directed for
the purpose of one enterprise.
- Number of workmen engaged to make ropes from within the factory. According to the P- these workmen were hired by contractors
who had executed an agreement with the P in order to get such work done- therefore, P contended that they were the contractor’s
workmen and not his.
- Rule: Where a worker/group of workers labours to produce goods/services and those are for the business of another, that other is, in
fact the employer. (He continues to have economic control over the workers, subsistence, skill and cont. employment- if he chokes
off, worker is virtually laid off)
- The presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex contractu is of no
consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment- therefore, the real employer is
the management and not the immediate contractor.
- Myriad devices, half-hidden in fold after fold of legal form depending on the degree of concealment needed, the type of industry,
the local conditions and the like may be resorted to when labour legislation casts welfare obligations on the real employer based on
A-38,39,42,43 and 43-A of the Constitution.

26. SK Verma v Mahesh Chandra (1983) II LLJ 429 1983 (4) SCC 214
- Whether Development Officer (sales promotion) under LIC is a workman?
- Employers argue:
o Not industry
o No industrial dispute
o Not workman
- Courts said that the designation of the job didn’t matter and the nature of the work would be looked at.
- The appointing authority for the development officers and supervisory staff was the same.
- As per the terms of employment, Development Officer has no discretion. After he trains agents- he has no control over them- only
LIC does.
- When he sells policy, he can only take money for first premium- after this LIC has to chalk out the programme to sell policies and
give details to LIC- two months in advance. He was a full-time employee.
- LIC, therefore, had complete control- “workman”.

27. HR Adhyantaya v Sandoz (India) Ltd. (1994) 5 SCC 737

- Issue: whether a medical representative whose job is to promote medicines of companies is a workman?
- Held:
o Promotion of sale is not a job included in the definition.
o The court struck down the argument that their job was ‘skilled’ and ‘technical’ w/o adequate reasoning.
o Also struck down argument that all persons not within the exception are workmen.
- SK Verma wasn’t correctly decided because there are multiple cases were sales employees were not declared to be workmen.
9
 28. SK Maini v M/S Carona Sahu Company Ltd. (1994) 3 SCC 510
- Issue: Whether the Manager of a shoe shop was a workman?
- Held:
o The manager was excluded by the definition anyway, but the substance of work must be looked into and the responsibility
of designation.
o Found that his principle work was indeed that of a manager (a/c for loss/theft responsible for absence and employment for
short duration and leave of his subordinates- adherence to law had to make up loss by shop).
o If a person is employing replacements, is it always a managerial job? No, only one of the factors have to be looked at.
o Not a workman.

29. Heavy Engineering Corporation v Presiding Officer, Labour Court (1996) 11 SCC 236
- Person appointed 4 doctors on a temporary basis—Whether a medical doctor is a workman?
- Doctor had a nurse, but said his work was ‘skilled and technical’.
- However, the court focused on the fact that he had people under him- therefore- supervisory- to be a workman, salary has to be
under < 10,000.
- This is problematic because his principle job is not supervision but skilled and technical.

30. Workmen of the Canteen of Coates of India Ltd v Coates of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 547
- Workers in a canteen in a company- work was outsourced to a caterer.
- The company formed a canteen committee- had members who were under the contractor as well + employees of the company.
- Issue: Whether these workers were contractors or workers?
- 1: Factories Act required for there to be a canteen, so they are under the company. But Court held that the Factories Act was
irrelevant.
- 2: Working in company’s compound? They are the company’s employees, so they should be workmen- but –
- Not- court held that there was still the presence of an intermediary- so- not workmen.

State Prescription of Standards

31. Workmen of Dewan Tea Estate v Their Management AIR 1964 SC 1458
- 11 Tea estates- employees laid off for 45 days- contended that it wasn’t justified so they should be paid- Held: lay off justified.
- The defn of lay off in s. 2 (kkk) is not an operative part of the act and therefore there is no conflict between the defn and the standing
orders.
- If there was a provision in the act specifically providing that an employer would be entitled to lay off his workmen for reasons
prescribed by s. 2 (kkk), it would have been another matter.
- Therefore, no force in the contention that s. 2 (kkk) of the Act is wider than the relevant rule in the standing order and should apply to
the facts of the case.
- “Stoppage of supply” in the section is not limited to money and funds.
- Lay off which gives rise to a claim of compensation under s. 25-C would mean lay off as defined in s. 2 (kkk).
- If Standing Orders provide for lay-offs and the manner of compensation- well and good. Otherwise, if lay off is permitted by Standing
orders but the grounds are not covered- the Act will govern the case and lay off will only be permissible if one of the factors
mentioned in s. 2 (kkk) are present. For such lay off compensation will be provided under s. 25-C.
- Cannot be held that s. 25-C recognizes the inherent right of the employer to declare lay-off for reasons he deems sufficient and
satisfactory. No such common law right can be spelt out from the provisions of s. 25-C.
- Whether “for any reason” should be construed ejusdem generis- question not considered.

32. Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. v The Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. (1976) I LLJ 493 (SC)
- Company laid off certain workmen from its establishment
- Company employed only 30 workmen
- Dispute as to compensation to lay off workmen
- Whether management has right to lay off and whether workmen entitled to any compensation
- Held: Management has no right to lay off
- Act does not confer any right to lay off on management
- Right of management to lay off derived from contract of service or standing order governing establishment
- No standing order or contract of service conferring any right on management to lay off
- Lay off without any power or authority
- Chapter VA of Act does not apply as establishment had no power to lay off
- Workmen entitled to full pay of lay off period but compensation to be decided by Tribunal

10
- SO: Whether the management of a co. has right to lay off- Must be conferred by standing order. If not mentioned, no right.
Because the act does not recognize a common law right to lay off.
- Grounds for laying off- Mentioned in standing orders. If not mentioned, one of the factors in s. 2 (kkk) should be present.
- Compensation- Mentioned in standing orders. Otherwise, if lay off in accordance with s. 2 (kkk), compensation will be
available under s. 25-C.

33. Associated Cement Companies v Their Workmen AIR 1960 SC 56

- The case debated on whether the cement factory and business of limestone quarrying were parts of one establishment.
- Whether the workmen of the cement factory could claim compensation for their lay-off, which was caused by the strike in the
limestone quarrying
- Held: The cement factory and limestone quarrying constituted a single establishment under provisions of Clause (iii) of Section 25E of
the Industrial Disputes Act because the quarry was located close to the factory and was the sole feeder of the same. So no
compensation.
- S. 25- An explanation does not lay down any test to determine what “one establishment” means. The purpose of such determination is
to determine the true relation between various branches and establishments. Difficulty: complexity of modern industrial organization.
- General tests to determine whether “one establishment”- geographical proximity, unity of ownership, general utility of purposes,
management and control, functional integrity etc.
- Duality of jurisdiction (Central gov for quarry and state gov for factory) does not imply that they are two separate establishments.
- Moreover, the strike was called by the same union which consisted of workers of the factory and the quarry. So disqualification under
s. 25-E (iii) came into play and the workmen of the cement factory could not claim compensation for their lay-off

34. Kairbetta Estate v Rajamanickam AIR 1960 SC 893

- Nature of lock out: antithesis of strike. Through strike, employees enforce their industrial demands and through a lock out employers
persuade workers through a coercive process to agree with them.
- Liability of employers would depend on legality and justifiability of lock out.
- Where the management was violently attacked and other staff was threatened, lock out was justified.
- Lay off may be due to reasons mentioned in the defn. “Any other reason” must be interpreted in consonance with reasons already
specified.
- Lock out and lay off are different. Lock out: reasons- political, disturbance with workers, establishment is completely closed,
compensation depends on legality and justifiability of lock out. Lay off: reasons- genuine circumstances like shortage of supply,
operations are not completely shut, compensation provided for by s. 25- C, D and E. So lock out under s. 2(l) cannot be included under
s. 2 (kkk) about lay off. The reasons for lockout have no relevance to reasons of for lay off under s. 2 (kkk).

35. Hariprasad Shiv Shankar Shukla v A.D. Divelkar AIR 1957 SC 121
- While interpreting Act- intention as expressed matters not assumed intention.
- The ordinary meaning of retrenchment is that business itself is continuing though a portion of the staff/ labour force is discharged.
- “For any reason whatsoever” has to be read with context and merely means that it does not matter why the surplus was discharged.
- There is no compelling language in the Act which would include bona fide closure of the whole business.
- If retrenchment was held to include closure, it would be against the scheme of the ID Act which assumes existence of industry.
- Such a meaning would make 25-H redundant.
- Retrenchment as used in s. 2 (oo) and s. 25-FF has no wider meaning than the ordinary accepted connotation of the word.
Retrenchment is: discharge of surplus labour by an employer for any reason whatsoever other than a punishment inflicted by
disciplinary action. Closure of business is not included. And even though transfer of business and closure of business are different-
for this purpose of interpretation of retrenchment, they are both the same and none of them are included.

36. Uptron v Shammi Bhan (1998) 6 SCC 538

- Provision for automatic termination of services on account of absence is not covered by exception (bb) to s. 2 (oo)
- In this case, the R was a permanent employee of P.
- There was no fixed term contract of service between them
- Since there was no contract, none of the two situations in exception (bb) are covered. 1. No question of service being terminated on
expiry of contract.
2. No question of termination due to stipulation to that effect in contract
- Therefore, the rule of exception was not applicable. R’s termination was retrenchment.
- “Liable to automatic retrenchment”- discretion of employer- cannot be unchecked- principles of natural justice and right to be heard
have to be applied especially since she was a permanent employee. She must also be told why she was retrenched.
- Therefore, retrenchment was improper

11
 37. Anand Bihari and Others v RSRTC and another 1991 Lab IC 494
- Retrenchment
- Appellants appointed as drivers to drive roadways buses of respondent corporation
- They developed defective eye-sight and were found totally unfit for driving heavy motor vehicles
- Their services were terminated
- Workmen prayed for alternative job of helper
- Court considered that workmen are incapacitated to work only as drivers and not rendered incapable of taking any other job
- Ordered that in case suitable jobs are available, retired workmen will be offered and employed on such jobs
- In case no job is available they should be given compensatory amount.
- Art. 14 was brought up saying eyeweakness is an employment hazard for drivers. Other employees don’t have this risk. You can’t
discriminate between the two sets of employees.
38. Orissa Textiles & Stell Ltd. V State of Orissa 2002 Lab IC 570(SC)
- Examined validity of amended S. 25-O in light of Excel wears case (struck down unamended 25-O) and Meenakshi Mills case (upheld
s. 25-N)
- Contention: Substantive ultra vires remain, only procedural removed + Legis delegated job to exec- not valid (Art. 19 (6)- restriction
can only be imposed by leg)
- Held: Constitutional
- Now, govt has to conduct inquiry, give reasons and do so within a fixed period of time. It can’t remain quiet because two months
silence can be understood as acceptance.
- The amended s. 25- O is saved by Art. 19 (6) because now the govt has to conduct an inquiry and give reasons for its decisions ‘in
public interest’. It can refuse all the reasons given by the employer. All this has to be done within a fixed time frame. So it is a
reasonable restriction.
- About “public interest” being as vague as it used to be in the unamended section, court said that it is important to keep it vague in
order to give it a wider scope in light of its importance.
- “May” w.r.t to referring/reviewing disputes will be read as “shall”
- Court compares 25-O with 25-N. Says, 25-N is valid and its elements (compensation, time period, inquiry, objections, permission from
Govt.) have been amended to 25-O.
- About the contention of the employers “if employees can come with objections if permission is given, why can’t employers come with
objections if permission is not given?”- Court said that option is contained in review after one year which is now read as “shall”
39. Rohtas Industries v Union (1976) 2 SCC 82 sec 10A ID Act, not an industrial dispute – strike
- Labour and Industrial
- Compensation - Section 10-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
- There was strike in the industry
- Parties agreed to refer dispute to arbitration
- Employees claimed wages for period of strike while employer claimed compensation for losses suffered during strike
- Arbitrator held employees guilty and asked them to make payment to management - High Court reversed Order –
- If disputes related to enforcement of right remedy is adjudication under Act - compensation for loss of business not related to
employment, non-employment or terms of employment or with condition of labour
- Therefore, dispute in question not an industrial dispute within meaning of Act
- Reference under Section.10-A is restricted to present or apprehending industrial disputes - reference to arbitration under Section 10-A
was not valid and so the Award was not valid either.
- If the purpose of the combination leading to strike was to inflict damage, it would be conspiracy. If the aim of the combination was to
improve wage prospects, it is not a tort of conspiracy even if it affects the interests of the employer. The right to strike is an essential
element of collective bargaining.
- In the present case, the strike was due to non-implementation of existing award and there were no ulterior motives. Hence, the strike is
not illegal.
- Even if they are illegal under s. 24, they do not lose immunity under s. 18. Immunity under s. 18 is unaffected by legality or illegality.
The workers demonstrations are protected so long as they are peaceful and not violent
40. Gujarat Steel Tubes v Mazdoor Sabha AIR 1980 SC 1896 – strike
41. Vidyasagar Institute of Mental Health v Hospital Employees Union (2006) ILLJ 781 (Del) – demonstration, immunity, strike
- P (hospital) filed suit restraining D (Employees Union) from holding any demonstration and from blocking the ingress and egress of
any person visiting the hospital.
- P also sought declaration that strike threatened by D was illegal. (Here D threatened that if demands weren’t made between them, they
would go on strike)
- Court- D can’t be allowed to disrupt activities, functioning, ingress/egress of visitors and patients and create nuisance by raising
slogans near hospitals where patients need peace and solitude. Peaceful demonstration is fine.
12
 - Strike was held illegal and injunction granted for restraining the D’s from holding any demonstration, dharnas, slogan shouting and
blocking- but allowed to peacefully do so 200m from radius of hospital.
- The court relied on a bunch of principles and held that the strike/demonstration is illegal.
o Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain suit of this nature
o Immunity given under Section 18 does not extend to conduct those acts, which may amount to an offence.
o Peaceful demonstration is a fundamental right.
o It is a legitimate right to make legitimate demands. Trade Union has the right to make demands in a peaceful manner.
o No right to hold demonstrations at the residence of the employer.
- Demonstrations cannot be violent or intimidating in nature

42. TK Rangarajan v Govt of Tamil Nadu AIR 2003 SC 3032 – strike by govt employees
- 2 lakh govt. employees went on strike. Dismissed.
- Employees could have gone to State Admin Tribunal but there was just one man working there. So they were allowed to approach the
HC under Art 226 (extraordinary circumstances)
- Held: There is no FR to strike. Gov employees have no FR or statutory right to strike (duty to society etc.)
- Reinstate with unconditional apology- except employees with criminal charges. + undertaking saying no strikes in the future
- Some more…
- Facts: Revolve around the unprecedented action of the State of TN, which terminated the services of all govt. servants who resorted
to strike for the fulfillment of their demands.
- Issue/Challenge? The employees had challenged the validity of the Tamil Nadu Maintenance of Essential Services Act, 2002 and
the Tamil Nadu Ordinance No.3 of 2003, both of which allowed the government to terminate the services of 2 lac employees- in
Madras HC under A-226/227.
- Court: Directed the Govt. through an interim order to allow all the employees to resume work and wait for further directions with
taking into considerations factors like termination without enquiry etc.
- Division bench: Reversed the decision saying all other remedies in the administrative tribunal were not exhausted.
- SC: No
o (1) Fundamental Right to go on strike : held time and again- Kameshwar Prasad (strikes valid since no FR to resort to
strike). All India Bank Employees’ Association v. National Industrial Tribunal (even a very liberal interpretation to 19
can’t mean that TU have a guaranteed right to effective bargaining or to strike)
o (2) Statutory/Legal Right, - further there is a prohibition to go on strike under the TV Service Conduct Rules- includes
absence from work as similar activities.
o (3) Moral/Equitable Justification- cannot claim that they can take the society at ransom by going on strike. Strikes affect
the whole society. In a society filled with unemployment, can’t possibly justify this.

Remuneration for Labour

43. Randhir Singh v. UOI 1982 AIR 879
44. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. UOI (1982) 3 SCC 235
45. Mackinnon Mackenzie v. Audrey D’Costa 1987 AIR 1281
46. State of AP v. G. Sreenivasa Rao 1989 SCR (1)1000
47. Standard Vacuum Refining Co. of India v Their Workmen AIR 1961 SC 895
48. Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd v Their Workmen AIR 1955 SC 33

Checking Discrimination

M/s Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Ltd v. Andrey D’Costa and another-
Claim: Paid less than male stenographers-performing similar work
Respondent: Duty as Confidential Stenographer- attached to the Senior Executives- hence not similar work as male Stenographers.
In deciding whether the work is the same or broadly similar-
The Authority should take an equally broad approach, for, the very concept of similar work implies differences in details, but these should
not defeat a claim for equality on trivial grounds. It should look at the duties actually and generally performed not those theoretically
possible by men and women. Where, however, both men and women work at inconvenient times, there is no requirement that all those who
work e.g. at night shall be paid the same basic rate as all those who work normal day shifts. Thus a woman who works days cannot claim
equality with a man on higher basic rate for working nights if in fact there are women working nights on that rate too, and the applicant
herself would be entitled to that rate if she changed shifts.
The fact that the management was not employing any male as a Confidential Stenographer attached to the senior Executives in the
establishment and that there was no transfer of Confidential Lady Stenographer to the general pool of Stenographers where males were
working ought not to make any difference for purposes of the application of the Act. Once It is established that the lady Stenographers were
doing practically the same kind of work which the male Stenographers were discharging the employer is hound to pay the same remuneration
to both of them irrespective of the place where they were working unless it is shown that the women are not fit to do the work of the male
Stenographer.
13
There is no custom or rule that only ladies can be Confidential Stenographers. If only women are working as Confidential Stenographers it is
because the management wants them there. Women are neither specially qualified to be Confidential Stenographers nor disqualified on
account of sex to do the work assigned to the male Stenographers”
The petitioner contends that the enforcement of the Act will be highly prejudicial to the management, since its financial position is not
satisfactory and the management is not able to pay equal remuneration to both male Stenographers and female Stenographers. The Act does
not permit the management to pay to a section of its employees doing the same work or a work of similar nature lesser pay contrary to
section 4(1) of the Act only because it is not able to pay equal remuneration to all. The applicability of the Act does not depend upon the
financial ability of the management to pay equal remuneration as provided by it.
Case: Randhir Singh v Union of India
The principle of “equal pay for equal work” has not been expressly declared by our constitution as a fundamental right but it is definitely a
constitutional goal. Some courts have pointed out that directive principles must be read into fundamental rights in this situation. Article 14
enjoins the state not to discriminate and deny any person equality before law or equal protection of laws.
No discrimination should be made between men and women workers while recruiting
Case: Air India Cabin Crew v Yeshaswini Merchant and Air India Officers Association v Air India Limited
Appeals were filed against the division bench of the Bombay High Court. The court held that the age of retirement from flying duties of air
hostesses at the age of 50 and then accepting ground duty till age of 58 is discrimination against them based on sex, which is violative of
Article 14, 15 and 16 of the constitution. The courts relied on Air India v Nargesh Meerza as various constitutional principles were
highlighted in this case regarding service conditions and lower age of retirement.
Section 4 of the Equal Remuneration Act prohibits the employer from paying unequal remuneration to male and female workers for work of
a similar nature whereas Section 5 requires the employer not to discriminate men and women with respect to recruitment conditions of
service for same work or work of similar nature.
The expression “same work and of similar nature” has been defined in Section 2(h) of the Equal Remuneration Act.
(Page 838-840 of the reading on ER)
Retrenchment: Barsi Light Railway Company & all cases afterwards like Sundramoney, Hindustan Steel, Delhi Cloth Mills, etc.
(Refer to OP Malhotra material mailed to you)
Retrenchment definition – Section 2(oo) of the ID Act- Very wide definition, in 2 parts- Termination of employee, for any ‘reason
whatsoever’ apart from disciplinary action. The second part excludes four kinds of removal:
Voluntary retirement/ Retirement of superannuation/ Termination on non-renewal of COE/Termination on ill health

14