#Industrial Disputes Act 1947

Delhi High Court ruled that a series of 89-day peon contracts cannot be shielded by the Section 2(oo)(bb) exemption of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court set aside the Labour Court's reinstatement award and ordered a lump-sum payment of Rs 3 lakhs per workman, with interest, affecting similarly engaged fixed-term workers.

Even though the employer failed to obtain prior approval under Sec 33(2)(b) before dismissing the employee, the High Court ruled that the workman remains entitled to back wages and that the Labour Court retains jurisdiction to assess misconduct. This protects dismissed workers from losing monetary relief due to procedural lapses by the employer.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that the Armenian Holy Church of Nazareth does not qualify as an “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, setting aside the tribunal award and dismissing the employee’s claim as a workman. This limits industrial-dispute relief to commercial enterprises, affecting workers in religious institutions.

Delhi HC set aside the 2005 Industrial Tribunal award that regularised a DTC driver, holding that mere continuity of service does not create a right to regularisation. The decision means employers need a statutory basis, not just tenure, to regularise temporary staff, affecting public-sector transport bodies and their workmen.

Bombay High Court upholds dismissal under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act for chronic absenteeism without medical proof, overturning a Labour Court's order for 50% backwages. The ruling reinforces that proportional punishment for unauthorized absence does not require reinstatement or full backwages, impacting employer disciplinary actions in service law disputes.

Bombay High Court rules that pay protection for ex-servicemen under service regulations is not merely a safeguard but the basis for pay fixation in civilian employment. The judgment quashes unilateral pay reductions and directs refund of recovered amounts, reinforcing natural justice and uniform application of fitment tables for ex-servicemen.

Bombay High Court clarifies that wages under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act must be paid as an additional amount, not adjusted against salary, for dismissal approval. The ruling emphasizes that minor procedural deficits should not override approval for grave misconduct like corruption, ensuring employers comply strictly with payment obligations.

Bombay High Court clarifies that a Quality Assurance Supervisor, despite supervisory duties, falls under the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, entitling wrongful termination compensation. The court rejected presumptive findings of post-termination employment and awarded Rs. 20 lakh for denial of backwages, reinforcing protections for non-managerial supervisory roles.