Topic
The Calcutta High Court held the 7th Industrial Tribunal had proper territorial jurisdiction and that a contractual clause cannot deprive it of statutory authority, so domestic-enquiry findings and back-wage awards remain governed by the Industrial Disputes Act. The ruling protects employees from employer-imposed contractual limits.
The Delhi High Court ruled that for industrial disputes the appropriate jurisdiction is where the employee worked and was dismissed, rendering the employer’s Delhi head office irrelevant. This clarifies that labour courts must base jurisdiction on the actual site of employment, affecting workers and employers in multi-state operations.
‘Industry’ now requires a commercial character in addition to the Triple Test under Sec 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Applied prospectively via the Industrial Relations Code 2020, the ruling reshapes which enterprises fall within industrial-dispute jurisdiction, affecting employers and workers.
The Delhi High Court held that a mere police complaint does not satisfy the ‘steps to prosecute’ requirement of Paragraph 19.3 of the Bipartite Settlement, so the employee’s reinstatement order was set aside and the bank’s dismissal for misappropriating funds was affirmed, shaping future disciplinary actions in industrial disputes.
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.
The Bombay High Court held that once the state encourages industries to invest through a clear incentive scheme, it cannot later withdraw those benefits retroactively, even via a subsequent resolution. This reinforces the doctrine of promissory estoppel as a shield against arbitrary state conduct, protecting entrepreneurs who act in good faith on official assurances.