Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

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