Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EMPLOYMENT LAW I
(EL I)
Prof. Parul Gupta
PhD (Faculty of Law-JMI, New Delhi), LL.M., PGDBM
SESSION 15
2
Discussion Point
Were the company was guilty of violating the
provisions of Section 22 of the Act and
permission was required before taking an
action against the workmen went on strike?
Dr. Parul Gupta
Judgment
the company did not violate the provisions of
Section 22 of the Act.
Since the workmen had resorted to an illegal strike from 7
a.m. on May 27, 1952, and a fair enquiry into the alleged
misconduct and insubordination of the workmen had
been held by the management without violating any
principles of natural justice. After the enquiry, the
management came to the bona fide conclusion that
continuing the workmen in its employ was detrimental to
discipline and dangerous in the interests of the appellant .
Dr. Parul Gupta
Take away
The provisions of Section 23(b) would apply
Discussion Points
1. Did the stoppage of the work fall within the definition
of a "strike" in s. 2 (q) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 and the strike was an illegal strike?
2. Were the workers entitled to claim holidays with pay
under S. 49-B (1) of the Indian Factories Act, 1934?
GROUP ASSIGNMENT
19
NEXT SESSION
GROUP NINE
CASE 16.3: H STEELS Ltd. V
P O LABOUR
Case Analysis Report
Submission Due Session 17
Dr. Parul Gupta
NEXT SESSION
20
SESSION 16
Lay off & Retrenchment Chapter V A & V B of IDA
Provisions for lay-off and
retrenchment as provided by
the Act
Dr. Parul Gupta
21