#workmen Archives - Prime Legal

Commissioner upholds penalty, dismisses company’s appeal in compensation case: Bombay HC

Title: Shipping Corporation of India Limited Vs Mr. Dasu M. Kutty

Citation: FIRST APPEAL NO. 708 OF 1996

Coram: Justice M.M. SATHAYE

Date: 05/01/24

Facts

The case involves a compensation claim by Mr. Dasu M. Kutty, who worked as a seaman for the Appellant since 1958. Mr. Kutty was employed by the Appellant from 1958 until his retirement. He filed a claim for benefits for injuries caused while working, claiming in particular 1991 chest problems that required by-pass surgery and rendered him unfit to serve in the maritime industry. The claimant contended that his hard work while serving on the ship affected his pre-existing heart disease. The claim was opposed by the employer, who denied the claim of a lifelong damage and denied any hard and stressful work. The Employer Shipping Corporation of India Limited has filed an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, challenging a judgment from 13.02.1996. In that decision, the company was directed to pay the deceased Claimant’s family compensation of Rs. 3,16,688/- with 6% interest from 14.07.1991. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 75,000/- and costs of Rs. 1000/- were imposed. The widow and daughter of the deceased Claimant are now pursuing the case.

Laws Involved

Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

“An order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half- monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum”. This means that instead of receiving compensation in regular installments, the injured worker or their dependents can opt to receive a one-time lump sum amount.

N.M.B. Agreement

It refers to the National Maritime Board Agreement, which typically governs terms and conditions of employment for seafarers in the maritime industry, including provisions related to compensation and benefits in case of injuries or disabilities.

Issues

Whether the Claimant’s entitlement to 100% disability compensation under the N.M.B. Agreement, is sustainable?

Judgement

After reviewing, The Appellant argued that a penalty should not have been imposed, citing the absence of such provision in the N.M.B. Agreement. However, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, while not contested for jurisdiction, justified the penalty and interest under the Act due to non-payment of compensation since 1991. The judgment upheld the Commissioner’s decision, pointing to laws allowing penalties for late compensation, and the appeal was rejected without any additional costs.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by:- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

TITLE : Rohit Dembiwal v Tata Consultancy Services Ltd

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Milind N Jadhav

DATE : 2^nd January 2024

CITATION : WP No 10523 of 2023

FACTS

The writ petition was filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Petitioner was appointed as IT Analyst Grade C-2 on basic salary of Rs.14,500/- per month excluding all other benefits. Few months later he was confirmed in the services of respondent company. However he was terminated the next year and he contends that the due process of law was not followed. The industrial court held that he was in a supervisory position and hence the provisions of labour law would not be attracted

LAWS INVOLVED

Section 2(s) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 :

(s) “workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute

Section 3(5) of The Maharashtra Recognition Of Trade Unions And Prevention Of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.

(5) “employee” in relation to an industry to which the Bombay Act for the time being applies, means an employee as defined in clause (13) of section 3 of the Bombay Act; and in any other case, means a workman as defined in clause (s) of section 2 of the Central Act;

ISSUES

whether the Petitioner can be qualified as a workmen under the definition of ‘workman’ contained in Section 2(s) of the ID Act and consequently definition of ‘employee’ within the meaning of Section 3(5) of the MRTU and PULP Act

JUDGEMENT

By analyzing the witnesses in the proceedings, it was observed that the petitioner was acting in managerial capacity. It was seen that Petitioner was a Module leader of the assignment given to him. It was seen that Petitioner was empowered to grant planned leave to associates working with him in that module and his signature was appended on the time sheet. Petitioner’s job was to analyse the nature of job, issues concerned, problems faced by the customer and assign the same to team members working under him according to their expertise for resolution of the same.

The court held that the labour court was right in holding that the petitioner does not fall under the category of workmen and upheld the order.

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

Best Lawyers in Bangalore

Dismissal of companies appeal in compensation case, commissioner Upholds penalty: Bombay High court.

A person in managerial position cannot be termed as an workman under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 : Bombay HC