Industrial Dispute act 1947 and Factories Act 1948

Business law presentation on Industrial Dispute act 1947 and Factories act 1948

1. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT, 1947
&
FACTORIES ACT 1948
PRESENTED BY-
SHIVANI SHARMA
SHAMLI SHARMA
SHUBHAM RAJ DEVOLIA
SOURABH YADWAD
SHUBHAM SUREKA

2. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT, 1947
TheIndustrialDisputesActhascomeintoforceintheyear,
1947.TheActwasenactedtomakeprovisionsforthe
preventionandsettlementofindustrialdisputesandfor
providingcertainsafeguardstotheworkers.Theactaims
tominimizetheconflictsbetweenlabourand
managementbyensuringpossibleeconomicandsocial
justice.Theregulationsmadeunderthisactappliestothe
entireconstitutionofIndia.

3. OBJECTIVES
Tosupportmeasuresforsecuringandpreservinggood
relationsbetweenemployersandemployees.
Toprovidesuitablemachineryfortheequitableand
peacefulsettlementofindustrialdisputes.
Topreventillegalstrikesandlockouts.
Toaffordrelieftoworkersagainstlayoffs,
retrenchment,wrongfuldismissalandvictimisation.
Topromotecollectivebargaining.
Toimprovetheconditionsofworkers.
Toavoidunfairlabourpractices.

4. FEATURES
TheactappliestoentireIndiaalsoincludesthestateof
JammuandKashmir.
Itfavoursarbitrationoverthedisputesbetween
employersandworkers.
Itaffordsforsettingupofworkscommitteesas
machineryformutualdiscussionbetweenemployers
andworkerstopromotefriendlyrelation.
Theactpavedthewayforcreatingpermanent
conciliationmachineryatvariousstageshavingdefinite
timelimitsforconciliationandarbitration.

5. FEATURES (CONT.)
Thisactemphasisoncompulsoryadjudicationapart
fromtheconciliationandvoluntaryarbitrationof
IndustrialDisputes.
TheActempowerstheGovernmenttoreferthedispute
toanappropriateauthority,i.e.,LabourCourt,
IndustrialtribunalandNationaltribunaldepending
uponthenatureofthedisputeeitheronitsownoron
therequestoftheparties.

6. DEVKINANDAN K. MISHRA
VS
SAYAJI IRON & ENGINEERING
PVT. LTD.
DECIDED ON –9
TH
AUG 2007
APPELLENT:
RESPONDENT:

7. THE INCIDENT
Theappellant,appointedasanmechanistchargehand,
wastosupervisetheworkovermachines.
Duringaninspectionon28
th
march1985,between2:30
am–4:30am,hewasfoundsleeping,alongwiththe
workerhewastosupervise.
Hewassuspendedimmediately.Achargesheetwas
issuedandaninquirywasmaderesultinginhis
termination.

8. LABOUR COURT, VADODRA
Petitionersaidhecouldnotbeterminatedashewas
workingasasupervisorbutwasaworkmanandthus
cannotbeterminated.
Therespondentssubmittedthatterminationwasjust
andproperforthe“misconduct”,ofsleepingonduty,
committedbytheappellant..

9. GUJRAT HIGH COURT
Petitionerputsforwardthepointthathedrawsasalary
oflessthanRs.1600/-andassuchisaworkmanasper
section2(s)ofIndustrialDisputesAct,1947.
Respondentssitethatthedefinitionstatesthata
personprimarilyinamanagerialpositionisnottobea
workman.

10. GRAVITY OF MISCONDUCT
Labourcourtapprovedofthefactthatterminationwas
justfortheactofmisconductcommittedbythe
appellant.
Theappellantsitedthejudgmentmadebythehon’ble
SupremeCourtinthematterofColour-ChemLtd.vs
A.L.Alaspurkar,whichisidenticaltothepresentcase,in
lightofwhichthepetitionercannotberemovedfrom
serviceforasinglelapse.

11. JUDGEMENT
ThelearnedLabourCourtwasnotjustifiedinholdingthatthe
petitionerwasnotaworkman,but,wasasupervisor.
Inthecasereferredtothehon’bleSupremeCourtfoundthat
wherethemisconductisnotofagravenature,reinstatement
andcontinuityofserviceshouldbeawardedasarule,but,
thepaymentofback-wageswouldbeinthediscretionofthe
Court.
Thepetitionerbereinstatedandbeawardedcontinuityof
serviceandbepaid30%backwages.

12. TATA MOTORS
VS
SINGUR
DECIDED ON –9
TH
AUG 2007

14. THE FACTORIES ACT, 1948
TheFactoriesAct,1948(theFactoriesAct)laysdown
provisionsforthehealth,safety,welfareandservice
conditionsofworkmenworkinginfactories.Itcontains
provisionsforworkinghoursofadults,employmentof
youngpersons,leaves,overtime,etc.Itappliestoall
factoriesemployingmorethan10peopleandworking
withtheaidofpower,oremploying20peopleand
workingwithouttheaidofpower.

15. THE FACTORIES ACT (CONT.)
Itcoversallworkersemployedinthefactorypremisesor
precinctsdirectlyorthroughanagencyincludinga
contractor,involvedinanymanufacture.Someprovisions
oftheActmayvaryaccordingtothenatureofworkofthe
establishment.

16. PROVISION OF FACTORIES ACT
Section 11
Section 13
Section 18
Section 19
Section 21
Section 45

17. M/S. MSCO PVT. LTD.
Vs.
UNIONS IF INDIA & OTHERS
DECIDED ON –31TH OCT’ 1984
APPELLENT:
RESPONDENT:

18. THE INCIDENT
Theappellantimportedsomesteelplatesataconcessional
rateofimportdutyunderanotificationthatprovided:
i.Thattheimportershouldimportthegoodsforthe
manufactureofalloranyofthearticlesspecifiedinthat
notification
ii.Thatthearticlessomanufacturedhadtobesoldto
industrialunitsfortheiruse
iii.Incaseofanyviolationofanyoneoftheconditions,the
importerwasliabletopaythediffererncebetweenduty
livableandexemptioncontainedatthetimeof
importation.