Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

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