labour case for jgls

7/23/2019 Labour Case for JGLS

1/4

Vidyasagar Institute of Mental Health v Hospital Employees Union (2006) ILL !"# ($el

Delhi High Court has held that the employees of the hospital, throughits union, have no right to cause incovenience, harassment or obstructthe patients and visitors and as such they are restrained from suchactivities including staging of dharna, demonstrations and blocking theingress or egress within the distance of 200 metres from the outerradius of the hospital. It was further observed that the rade !inon, asrepresenting the employees, has no right to cause obstruction toingress or egress or staging demonstration since for redressal ofgrievances, they have to recourse to the forum as provided under thelaw instead of indulging in such activities.

"ollowing #rinciples were culled out

2.Immunity given to the !nions under $ection %&of the rade !nions'ct, %(2), does not e*tend to conduct those acts which may amount to

o+ence.

.#eaceful demonstration is a fundamental right of the!nions-employees.

%amesh&ar 'rasad v tate of ihar *I+ #,62 - ##66

In this .ase the /uestion .ame efore the supreme .ourt regarding .onstitutional validity

of +ule 1* of the ihar overnment ervants -ondu.t +ules3 #,46 &hi.h prohiits any

form of demonstration and resort to stri5e 7he .ourt held that a demonstration is a visile

manifestation of the feelings or sentiments of an individual3 or a group It is thus a.ommuni.ation of one8s ideas to others to &hom it is intended to e .onveyed It is in

effe.t a for of speeh or of e9pression e.ause spee.h need not e vo.al sin.e signs madey a dum person &ould also e a from of spee.h 7here are forms of demonstration&hi.h &ould fall &ithin the freedoms guaranteed under these .lauses o a pea.eful

demonstration is .onsidered as a fundamental right &hi.h is nothing ut a y produ.t of

*rti.le #,(#)(a) and #,(#)() of the .onstitution 7he upreme -ourt therefore allo&edthe appeal in part and granted appelants a de.laration the +ule 1 * in the form in &hi.h it

stood prohiiting any form of demonstration &as violative of the appellants right under

*rti.e #,(#)(a) and () and should therefore e stru.5 do&n It is only ne.essary to addthat the rule3 isofar as it prohiits a stri5e .annot e stru.5 do&n sin.e there is no

fundamental right to resort to stri5e

D. C. Dewan Mohideen Sahib And Sons vs The IndustrialTribunal, Madras on 6 April, 1964

Issue whether reduction of annas two in the wages of workersemployed under the agents of the appellants was /ustied and to whatrelief the workers were entitled.

"acts 1n a reference of industrial disputes between the appellants,the proprietors of bidi concerns, and their workmen, the appellants
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/514425/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/514425/


2/4

contended before the Industrial ribunal that the workers in uestionwere not their workmen, but were the workmen of independentcontractors. he ribunal found on the basis of evidence led, that themodus operandi was that contractors took leaves and tobacco fromthe appellant and3 employed workmen for manufacturing bidis.

'fter bidis were manufactured, the contractors took them back fromthe work4 men and delivered them to the appellants. he workmentook the leaves home and cut them there5 however the process

of actual rolling by lling the leaves with tobacco took place in whatwas called contractors3 factories. he contractors kept noattendance register for the workmen, there was no condition for theircoming and going at *ed hours, nor were they bound tocome for work every day5 sometimes they informed the contractors ifthey wanted to be absent and some times they did not.he contractors said that they could take no action if the workmenabsented themselves even without leave.he payment was made to

the workmen at piece rates after the bidis were delivered to theappellants. he system was that the appellant paid a certainsum for the manufactured bidis, after deduct4ing therefrom thecost of tobacco and the leaves already *ed, to the contractors who intheir turn paid to the workmen, who rolled bidis, their wages.

6hatever remained after paying the workmen would becontractors3 commission for the work done, he ribunal held thatthere was no sale either of the raw materials or of the nishedproducts, for, according to the agreement, if the bidis were notrolled, raw materials had to, he returned to the appellants and thecontractors were forbidden from selling the raw materials to

anyone else. "urther the manufactured bidis could only bedelivered to the appellants who supplied the raw materials. "urtherprice of raw materials and nished products *ed by theappellants alwaysremained the same and never 7uctuated accordingto market rate. he ribunal concluded that the bidi workers werethe employees of the appellants and not of the so4 called

contractors who were themselves nothing more thenemployees or branch managers of the appellants. hereupon, theappellants led writ petitions in the High Court, which held thatneither the bidi roller nor the intermediary was an employee ofthe appellants and allowed the writ petitions. 1n

appeal by the workmen the appeal court allowed theappeal and restored the order and conclusion of the ribunal. 1nappeal by certi4cate Held 1n the facts found the appeal court3was right in holding that the conclusion reached by the ribunal thatthe intermediaries were merely branch managers appointed3 by the)89 management and the relationship of employers and employeessubsisted between the appellants and the bidi rollers wascorrect.


3/4

:easoning

he correct approach therefore was to consider whether, having regardto the nature of the work there was due control and supervision by theemployer. It was further held that the uestion whether the relationbetween the parties was one as between an employer and employeeor master and servant was a pure uestion of fact, depending upon thecircumstances of each case.

so4called independent contractors were indigent persons who were inall respects under the control of the appellants. here is in our opinionlittle doubt that this system has been evolved to avoid regulationsunder the "actories 'ct. "urther there is also no doubt from whateverterms of agreement are available on the record that the so4calledindependent contractors have really no independence at all.

he contract is practically one sided in that the proprietor can at his

choice supply the raw materials or refuse to do so, the so4calledcontractor having no right to insist upon the supply of raw materials tohim.

Heavy Engineering -orporation v 'residing :ffi.er3 Laour -ourt (#,,6

"acts

7he appellant had appointed respondent ;o2 as $o.tor in theeneral $uty Medi.al

:ffi.er rade


4/4

Issue

?@hether the termination of servi.es of $r -handrahas 'rasad y the management from#!01#,!, is Austified B If not3 &hether he is entitled to reinstatementCor any other relief B

7he main .ontention &hi.h &as raised y respondent ;o2 efore the Laour -ourt &as

that he had .ompleted 210 days of servi.e and &as entitled to a noti.e of one month asprovided y e.tion 24

labour case for jgls

Documents