Wife Exaggerating Husband's Income In Maintenance Affidavit Is Not Perjury: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Husband's Section 340 Application Candidate Cannot Be Faulted For Missing Disclaimers In Form-26 Supplied By Returning Officer: Bombay High Court Dismissal Without Departmental Enquiry Violates Natural Justice When Criminal Conviction Is Set Aside: Chhattisgarh High Court Orders Reinstatement Cipla MD Gets Relief: Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes Drug Prosecution For Absence of Specific Averment on Day-to-Day Role Mandatory Notice Under Section 106(3) Railways Act Applies To 'Overcharges', Not 'Illegal Charges': Gauhati High Court Insurer Can't Escape Paying Accident Victims Even With Invalid Licence Defence — Avoidance Clause In Policy Seals Liability: Gujarat High Court Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts — Once A Claim Is Founded On Fraud, The Entire Edifice Of The Claim Collapses And No Relief Can Be Granted: Supreme Court Like Cases Must Be Decided Alike": Orissa High Court Directs State To Pay Service Benefits To Deceased Employee's Heirs Claiming Parity Ancient Jain Idol Cannot Remain In Police Custody Under Treasure Trove Act: Allahabad High Court Orders Transfer To Museum Income Tax | Receivables For Warranty Reimbursements Constitute An 'Asset' Under Section 153A For Reopening Assessment: Delhi High Court Married Persons Cannot Claim Police Protection For Live-In Relationships Without First Obtaining Divorce: Allahabad High Court Breach Of Private Compromise Cannot Ipso Facto Trigger Cancellation Of Probation Granted On Legally Sustainable Grounds: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Interference Under Article 226 In Eviction Proceedings When Land Compensation Is Deposited In Competent Court: Kerala High Court "Immediately Preceding Three Years" For Land Compensation Must Be Calculated From Date Of Section 11 Notification, Not Calendar Year: Jharkhand High Court Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Attributed To Minor Children; State Strictly Liable For Unsecured Hazardous Reservoirs: J&K High Court Party Seeking Transfer Can't Hide Pending Transfer Petition From High Court: Karnataka HC Quashes Transfer Order Mother Can Represent Muslim Minor As 'Next Friend' In Civil Suit As CPC Provisions Are Secular And Not Tied To Personal Law: Calcutta High Court First Appellate Court Must Frame Points For Determination Under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, Cannot Remand Cryptically: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Recovery Of Stolen Property Cannot Be Sole Basis For Murder Conviction If Chain Of Circumstances Is Broken: Bombay High Court MP Constable's Shell Company, Rs.6.44 Crore Properties, Ghost Cooperative Society: HC Rejects PMLA Bail of Director Who Had 'No Financial Capability' To Buy What He Bought

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