Labour Law Case Study

A person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory is the “occupier” of the factory. As per the provisions of section, 2 (n) of the Factories Act, 1948, in case a factory is owned or controlled by the Central/State Government or any local authority, the person(s) appointed to manage the affairs of the factory, by the Central/State Government or nay local authority, shall be deemed to be occupier of that factory. Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 provides that it is the statutory responsibility of the occupier of a Factory to maintain a statutory canteen so long as the staff strength exceeds 250.

Supreme Court of India – Mohan Singh & Others Vs. The Chairman Railway Board & Others – 2015 LLR 1009

When Code Number is allotted to a contractor under the Employees’ Provident Fund Act, 1952, it becomes an establishment under section 2 ( e ) of the CLR Act. The Contractor having an independent code Number under the EPF Act, 1952, he is liable to pay EPF contributions in respect of employees whose salary is paid by him. Principle Employer is not liable to pay EPF contribution in respect of employees engaged through independent contractor who has been having an independent code Number under the EPF Act.

Punjab & Haryana High Court – Calcutta Constructions Company Vs. RPFC & others – 2015 – LLR 1023

When the relationship of employer – employee is missing, the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 would not apply. In the absence of relationship of employer – employee, the establishment would not fall in terms of “Establishment “ or “Contractor”.

Gujarat High Court – Bindeshwar Pathak Vs. State of Gujarat & Another – 2015 (146) FLR 545

Contractor and principal employer both are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the claim for compensation, as raised by the dependants / claimants of the deceased workman who was engaged by the contractor for carrying out construction work of the principal employer/appellant and died due to electric short circuit.

Bombay High Court – Nitin Vs. Ramesh & Others – 2015 (146) FLR 519

Milk Allowance being paid to each workman is a part of wages subject to ESI contribution since it does not fall within the category of sum paid “ to defray special expenses entitled on the workman by nature of his employment”. Section 2 (9) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, makes it clear that the wages include any kind of remunerations received out of a contract or as an adhoc payment for work done outside the contract including overtime, provided it is received at an intervals of not more than two months.

Calcutta High Court – Kesoram Industries Ltd., Vs. ESI Corporation & others – 2015 – LLR – 1087

When the workers of the contractors holding licence under the Contractors Labour (R & A ) Act, have been working at the premises of and for the principal employer, they will not become the employees of the principal employer.

Delhi High Court – Ranbir Singh & Another Vs. Ganga Ram Hospital – 2015 – LLR 1071

Out of 4 members of the Internal Complaints Committee, 3 are to be women and one from an NGO, an independent member altogether. One lady member is to be of senior level.

Allahabad High Court – Shobha Goswani Vs. State of U.P. & others – 2015 – LLR 1038

It is not necessary that the workman must be actually working at the time of injury or the accident. When the death, in fact, was not due to pre-existing disease from which he was suffering but on account of factors coupled with his employment including stress and strain of the work, it would be right to conclude that the death occurred as consequence of and in course of employment.

Karnataka High Court - M.D., State Road Transport Corpn., Vs. Jayalakshmi and Others – 2015 – LLR 1068

If the committee so constituted by the employer does not have a senior level woman officer to head the committee, action of the committee is to be disregarded or liable to be set aside. One member from amongst Non-Governmental organisation or associations committed to the cause of women or a person familiar with the issues relating to sexual harassment is to be nominated. At least one half of the total members so nominated are required to be women.

Gujart High Court – Shardaben Murlibhai Gurjar Vs. State of Gujarat & others – 2015 LLR 1095

Nominee is only to collect the amount for and on behalf of the legal representatives or for the benefit of the legal representatives of the deceased. Nominee has no right to appropriate the whole of the amount so collected unless he is sole legal representative or he is given a right to have testamentary succession on the basis of a valid will. Nominee has to disburse the amount , so collected, to the legal representatives of the deceased. If there is no valid will in his favour, he himself has no right to keep any share of the amount so collected by him under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Kerala High Court – Alamelu Vs. Pushkala – 2015 LLR 1098