Legal Reference Library

The third schedule of ID Act provides for which type of matters fall within the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunals. It provides as under: MATTERS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS 1. Wages, including the period and mode of payment; 2. Compensatory and other allowances; 3. Hours of work and rest intervals; 4. Leave with wages and holidays; 5. Bonus, profit sharing, provident fund and gratuity; 6. Shift working otherwise than in accordance with standing orders; 7. Classification by grades; 8. Rules of discipline; 9. Rationalisation; 10. Retrenchment of workmen and closure of establishment; and 11. Any other matter that may be prescribed. See Also :  Tata Chemicals Limited Vs. Okha Mandal Majoor Sangh  [Gujarat High Court, 25-04-2017]

Award passed by Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal: Award passed by Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is binding till it is substituted by another award/court order/court compromise indicating such substitution, or is replaced by another settlement, or terminated by either party under S. 19(6). Settlement/compromise/scheme in question arrived at before court after passing of awards concerned, did not amount to substitution of the awards in absence of any specific indication as to such substitution given in order passed by court pursuant to compromise. [T.N. Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Assn. v. LIC, (2015) 9 SCC 62]

When there is a labour dispute in a central government undertaking, the state government where it is situated can refer the issues to a labour court there according to its law. It is not essential that the central government should refer it according to the Industrial Disputes Act, the central law, the Supreme Court stated when a dispute arose between the workers of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) in Nashik, Maharashtra, and the central undertaking. The Supreme Court, thus, quashed the Bombay High Court order, which held a different view. This is a question, which has arisen in several cases when a central industry is situated in a state. Though there have been decisions in the cases of Air India, SAIL and Heavy Engineering Corporation, the issue has cropped up again. In this case, the workers' union filed a complaint under the Maharashtra Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. The labour court found that HAL had indulged in unfair practices and ordered rei...

While deciding on the issue of rejection of claim on the ground of inordinate delay and laches in an industrial dispute, the bench of Sanjay Karol, J. held that delay in raising the dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication is not erroneous and it also does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from his employer. The Court relying on Raghubir Singh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, (2014) 10 SCC 301, stated that the workman is entitled for reinstatement, back wages and consequential benefits from the date of raising the industrial dispute. Giving reasons, the Court observed that it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to the delay. It further stated that the Labour Court is statutorily duty bound to answer the points of dispute referred to it by deciding the same on merits of the case, an...