Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

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