Skip to main content


3. Ahemdabad Pre. Primary Teachers' Association vs. Adminis- trative Authority, (2004) SCC 755

Sub :- This case is based on Section 2(c) of the Payment of Gratuity Act Facts of the case :- 1. Respondent No.2 was a teacher in a school run by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. 2. He demanded gratuity under the Minimum Wages Act. High Court :- The High Court dismissed the demand. Supreme Court:- The Court held that 'workman' has been defined under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. ' Workman' means any person including a trainee is also em- ployed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled, manual, super- visory, technical or clerical work for fare or reward, whether the term of such employment are expressed or implied and they will all be known as workman who have been removed or discharged in connection with a dispute or as a result of dispute or who have been retrenched or the said dispute has arisen as a result of their removal, discharge or retrenchment. Whether an educational institution come under the category of an industry? The Court has k


Recent posts

2. People's Union For Democratic Rights vs. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1480

  Ref : AIR 1982 SC 1480 Sub :- This case is based on a Public Interest Litigation on a subject related to the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. Facts of the case :- 1. In the instant case, People's Union For Democratic Rights is an institution which has, through a letter, informed the Supreme Court that fundamental right and legal right of the workers engaged in the scheme of the Asiad Games are being infringed upon. 2. The contractor is giving wages to the workers by deduct- ing Rs. 1 as a commission at the time of payment of Rs. 7 to women and Rs. 8 to the men workers. 3. The institution stated that in this scheme, the workers are being made to work as bonded labour and they are not being paid even a minimum wages. 4. Supreme Court allowed this letter treating it as a writ under Article 32. Supreme Court :- At the time of hearing, the court held that the labour class of this country, what so ever sector they belong, they can directly or through a organisation, give an

1. B.Shah vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, AIR 1978 SC 12

 Ref : AIR 1978 SC 12 Sub :- This case is based on Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 Facts of the case:- 1. A woman by the name of Sulbamal worked in an industry named Mount Stuart Estate which was related to planta- tion. 2. Sulbamal gave an application for maternity leave. The estimated period for delivery was 16-12-1967 and she deliv- ered the child on this very date. 3. Maternity benefit was given by way of salary for 72 work- ing days by the employer to the woman workman, but in this period Sunday being the holiday, was excluded by the employer. 4. Thus, being dissatisfied with the amount so provided, she filed an application before the employer in this regard. 5. It was demanded by the woman workman that she should be given full benefit of 12 weeks under the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 which is of full 84 days, not of 72 days because Sunday is also included in it. 6. But, she was denied of the payment of full 84 days by the employer. Trial Court:- T

Book References in Labour Law II

1. H.K. Sharey - Industrial & labour laws in India (Prenctice-Hall) New Delhi. 2. I.A. Sayieed Labour laws, Himalyan Publishing Co. Nagpur 3. Reshma Arora Labour law, Himalyan Publishing Co. Nagpur 4. S.K. Mishra Labour and Industrial law Allahabad law agency H.N. 387, Sector 16-A Faridabad. 5. Taxmann Labour laws - Bare Act (Taxmann allied series, Allahabad) 6. S.C. Shrivastava Treatise on social security and labour laws EBC Lucknow. 9. Seth D.D. Commentaries on Industrial Act (Law publishing house Allahabad) 10. K.D. Shrivastava - Commentary of payment of wages act (1998) EBC Lucknow. 7. S.N. Mishra Labour & Industrial laws CLA Allahabad.  8 P.L. Malik Hand Book of Labour and Industrial laws, EBC Lucknow. 9 V.G. Goswami - Labour and Industrial laws, CLA Allahabad. 10. O.P. Malhotra The law of Industrial Disputes (1998) Universal Delhi. 11. P.K. Padhi -Labour and Industrial Laws, Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.


(1) The Employees' State insurance Act, 1948 (2) The Factories Act, 1948 (3) The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1 (4) The Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 (5) The Gratuity Act, 1972 Detail Course contents: (1) The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 -Preliminary (Definitions) (Sec. 1-2), Corporation, Standing Committee and Medical Benefit Council (Sec. 3-25), Finance and Audit (Sec. 26-37), Contributions (Sec. 38-45), Benefits (Sec. 46-59), Adjudication of Disputes and Claims (Sec. 74-83), Penalties (Sec. 84-86). (2) The Factories Act, 1948- Preliminary (Definitions) (Sec. 1-7), Inspecting Staff (Sec. 8-10), Health (Sec. 11-20), Safety (Sec. 21-41), Welfare (Sec. 42-50), Working hours of Adults (Sec. 51-66), Employment of Young persons (Sec. 67-77), Annual leave with wages (Sec. 78-84). (3) The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 - Preliminary (Definitions) (Sec. 1-2), Prohibition of Employment of Children in certain occupations and processes (Sec.

संविधान का अनुच्छेद 311 चर्चा में क्यों?

  हाल ही में एक पुलिस अधिकारी को मुंबई पुलिस आयुक्त ने बिना विभागीय जाँच के संविधान के अनुच्छेद 311(2)(b) के तहत सेवा से बर्खास्त कर दिया था। प्रमुख बिंदु: अनुच्छेद 311: अनुच्छेद 311 (1) कहता है कि अखिल भारतीय सेवा या राज्य सरकार के किसी भी सरकारी कर्मचारी को अपने अधीनस्थ प्राधिकारी द्वारा बर्खास्त या हटाया नहीं जाएगा, जिसने उसे नियुक्त किया था। अनुच्छेद 311 (2) के अनुसार, किसी भी सिविल सेवक को ऐसी जाँच के बाद ही पदच्युत किया जाएगा या पद से हटाया जाएगा अथवा रैंक में अवनत किया जाएगा जिसमें उसे अपने विरुद्ध आरोपों की सूचना दी गई है तथा उन आरोपों के संबंध में सुनवाई का युक्तियुक्त अवसर प्रदान किया गया है। अनुच्छेद 311 के तहत संरक्षित व्यक्ति: संघ की सिविल सेवा,  अखिल भारतीय सेवाओं और किसी राज्य की सिविल सेवा  संघ या किसी राज्य के अधीन सिविल पद धारण करने वाले व्यक्ति। अनुच्छेद 311 के तहत दिये गए सुरक्षात्मक उपाय केवल सिविल सेवकों, यानी लोक सेना अधिकारियों पर लागू होते हैं। वे रक्षाकर्मियों के लिये उपलब्ध नहीं हैं। अनुच्छेद 311 (2) के अपवाद: 2 (a) - जहाँ एक व्यक्ति की उसके आचरण के आधार पर

Distinguish between Lay-off and Retrenchment.

Ans. Difference between Lay-off and Retrenchment- following are the differences between lay-off and retrenchment 1. In lay-off the relation between the employer and t worker is continuously maintained but retrechment such a process whereby this relation between the emp loyer and the worker is breached and the continu comes to an end. 2. For lay-off it is not essential to give any information to th aggregate Government but for retrenchment it is essentia to give prior notice to the Government and preceden conditions have to be complied with. 3. Lay-off has a similar effect on all the employees an therefore all are similarly effected by if but retrenchmen has a specific principle and retrenchment according t that alone is considered constitutional or legal; tha principle has comprehensive acceptance. Retrenchmen should always be made on the principle: Last come firs go. 4. In lay-off there is no special provision for compensation but in retrenchment in almost every particular condition c