Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Workers’ Permanency Rights: Certified Standing Orders Prevail over Private Agreements

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


  In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India upheld the rights of workers to permanency, stating that certified Standing Orders have statutory force and cannot be superseded by private agreements. The judgment was delivered by Justice Sanjay Karol, who quashed and set aside the previous award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and the judgment of the High Court of Bombay.

The case, Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh vs. M/s. Jet Airways Ltd., revolved around the employment status of approximately 169 workmen engaged on fixed-term contracts by the respondent company. The workmen claimed that despite completing the required days of service, they were treated as temporary employees and demanded reinstatement with full back wages.

Justice Sanjay Karol, in his judgment, emphasized the importance of certified Standing Orders and their statutory nature, stating, “The Act being the beneficial legislation provides that any agreement/contract/settlement wherein the rights of the employees are waived off would not override the Standing Orders.” The court ruled in favor of the workers, declaring them entitled to all benefits as per the Bombay Model Standing Order.

The court further clarified that any private agreement or settlement that contradicts the certified Standing Orders would be invalid and non-binding, unless it is more beneficial to the employees. The judgment reiterated the role of Standing Orders in protecting the rights of workers and ensuring fair terms and conditions of employment.

This landmark decision reaffirms the significance of statutory protections for workers and serves as a reminder to employers that they cannot override workers’ rights through private agreements. The ruling sets a precedent for cases involving the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and aims to safeguard workers’ interests in industrial establishments.

With this verdict, the Supreme Court has affirmed its commitment to upholding workers’ rights and ensuring that the law prevails over private arrangements that may compromise the interests of the workforce. The judgment is expected to have far-reaching implications on the interpretation and application of labor laws in India.

 Date of Decision: July 25, 2023

 Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh   vs M/s. Jet Airways Ltd.     

           

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/25-Jul-2023_BHARTIYA-KAMGAR-KARMACHARI-MAHASANGH_Vs_Jet_Airways.pdf"]                                 

Latest Legal News