Professional Documents
Culture Documents
State Shops and Establishment Act 1948 :- Currently, the Act stipulates that under normal
circumstances an employee cannot be required or allowed to work for more than nine hours in a day
and 48 hours in a week (Section 14), any work beyond the stipulated working hours (overtime work)
must be paid at double the normal wage rate of the employee, an employee must be allowed an
interval of rest of at least one hour after five hours of continuous work (Section 15) and his spread-
over cannot exceed eleven hours in a day (Sub-sections 16 & 17), every shop must remain closed on
one day of the week and no deduction of wages is to be made for the closing day (Section 18),
women are not allowed to work either as employees or otherwise after 9:30 p.m. (Sub-sections 33 &
34A), young people in the age group of 15-17 years are not allowed to work after 7 p.m. and for
more than six hours in a single day (Sections 33, 34 & 34A), an employee is entitled to annual leave
with pay for 21 days for 240 days of work (Sub-sections 35-37) and all provisions of the Maternity
Benefit Act of 1961 and Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1923 apply to every shop covered by the
Ac
FACTORIES LAW :-
Supreme Court Levies Penalty On Growth Shop Of Tata Steel For Violation
Of Factories Act Thread Started by #Pca❞ The Supreme Court has imposed
a fine on Growth Shop of Tata Steel Ltd in Jharkhand for violating various
provisions of the Factories Act and rules. The allegations were that the
management took overtime service from contract labourers without
providing them overtime slips, they were not given leave book, and in the
canteen there was no partition for women workers, doors and windows
were not fly- proof, there was no rate card nor 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
appealed to the Supreme Court. It gave a chance to rectify the defects as
they were “apparently trivial”. The accused persons returned stating that
the defects have been cured. Then the question 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 though there was no
criminal intent, still labour law was violated. It imposed ₹ 50,000 as
punishment. Supreme Court order dated 4.5.2016 in this regard is attached.
read more at: https://www.citehr.com/564712-supreme-court-levies-
penalty-growth-shop-tata.html
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/indl-goods/svs/steel/pension-dispute-at-tata-steel-
uk-ends/articleshow/48089803.cms
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/rumblings-of-labour-issues-at-tata-motors-
sanand-facility/article9585744.ece
https://insideiim.com/industrial-relations-in-tata-steel-a-detailed-overview-shubham-from-xlri/