Dear Sri Umakanthan Sir:
In this Case, the Award was passed on 23.08.2014. No copy of the Award was received at the hands of Management till 1st week of December 2014Hence, Management has initiated to get the certified copy of the Award from the Labour Court and the same was issued by the Labour Court on 09.12.2014. Since the Labour Court directed the Management to pay the relief of 25% of wages within 3 months from the date of receipt of Award copy by the Management, the Management has taken the decision to shoot out a communication to the workman in order to reveal its intention to goby the Award of the Labour Court as it is in case he also accepts the award as it is. This was done for the reason of complying the Award in time and more over considering the workman who has attained the age of superannuation during pending disposal of the ID by the Labour Court. Hence, the Management is ready to go in either way. In fact, the Management has approached the wife of the deceased workman in multiple occasions to settle the issue, but she is firm in challenging the award.
Sir I once again express my sincere thanks to all the experts who have made valuable dialogues in the issue posted by me.
Regards, V Sridhar
From India, Mumbai
25In this Case, the Award was passed on 23.08.2014. No copy of the Award was received at the hands of Management till 1st week of December 2014Hence, Management has initiated to get the certified copy of the Award from the Labour Court and the same was issued by the Labour Court on 09.12.2014. Since the Labour Court directed the Management to pay the relief of 25% of wages within 3 months from the date of receipt of Award copy by the Management, the Management has taken the decision to shoot out a communication to the workman in order to reveal its intention to goby the Award of the Labour Court as it is in case he also accepts the award as it is. This was done for the reason of complying the Award in time and more over considering the workman who has attained the age of superannuation during pending disposal of the ID by the Labour Court. Hence, the Management is ready to go in either way. In fact, the Management has approached the wife of the deceased workman in multiple occasions to settle the issue, but she is firm in challenging the award.
Sir I once again express my sincere thanks to all the experts who have made valuable dialogues in the issue posted by me.
Regards, V Sridhar
From India, Mumbai
The original posting does not throw light on one important aspect - what is the decision of the Labour Court as to the dismissal of the workman? From the facts posted suggest that the punishment of dismissal has been set aside and the he had been directed to be reinstated (notionally) in service; it is only that back wages had been restricted to 25%. Thus the question that arises is whether there is an illegality or irregularity in not awarding the back wages in full. It could be that the wife of the deceased employee had moved the WP on this aspect under Article 227. Please verify. If so, the delay may not be of much consequence unless it amounts to laches.
From India, Kochi
From India, Kochi
The Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the punishment imposed on the workman is not justified but considering entire facts and circumstances and the nature of charges levelled against the workman are proved, the court is of the view by exercising its discretionary power under section 11A of the Act, that denial of 75% of back wages would meet the end of justice. As such, the Labour court awarded 25 % of wages as compensation for the non-employment period of workman from the date of dismissal. In the Award, the court no where has comes to the conclusion that the dismissal is set aside. Regards,
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Good inputs from seniors. Here the award of the Labour Court was challenged by the wife of the deceased workman under Art.226 of the Constitution by invoking writ jurisdiction of the hon'ble High Court.
The first issue is whether the legal heirs can file a writ challenging an ward that was delivered when the workman was alive. Normally, as I understand, a legal heir is allowed to be impleaded as a party to a suit/ petition during pendency of which the petitioner dies. In this case, the workman died before filing the writ.However, the writ jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution is an extra-ordinary and discretionary remedy and can be filed by any one whose fundamental rights are violated or who has legal rights in the matter to the dispute. So as I understand, a legal heir can possibly invoke writ jurisdiction in this case both as parties, having legal rights in the dispute and also likely on the ground of violation of their fundamental rights under Art.19 and 20.(right to life and livelihood)
The second issue is the legal heirs can file a writ after 4.5 years after the delivery of the award in 2014. The law prescribes time limit for appeals and civil suits and so far as I gather,there is no time limit prescribed under Art.226 for filing a writ, it being an extraordinary remedy. However law discourages delay as it renders issues stale by passage of time and change of circumstances but does not outrightly reject a petition on this ground if it results in serious miscarriage of justice or if the delay is due to justifiable reasons.
So you need to consult a lawyer in service and labour matters and prepare your grounds to rebut the opposite party's contentions
These are only views and others are welcome to correct them.
B.Saikumar
HR & Labour Relations Consultant.
From India, Mumbai
The first issue is whether the legal heirs can file a writ challenging an ward that was delivered when the workman was alive. Normally, as I understand, a legal heir is allowed to be impleaded as a party to a suit/ petition during pendency of which the petitioner dies. In this case, the workman died before filing the writ.However, the writ jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution is an extra-ordinary and discretionary remedy and can be filed by any one whose fundamental rights are violated or who has legal rights in the matter to the dispute. So as I understand, a legal heir can possibly invoke writ jurisdiction in this case both as parties, having legal rights in the dispute and also likely on the ground of violation of their fundamental rights under Art.19 and 20.(right to life and livelihood)
The second issue is the legal heirs can file a writ after 4.5 years after the delivery of the award in 2014. The law prescribes time limit for appeals and civil suits and so far as I gather,there is no time limit prescribed under Art.226 for filing a writ, it being an extraordinary remedy. However law discourages delay as it renders issues stale by passage of time and change of circumstances but does not outrightly reject a petition on this ground if it results in serious miscarriage of justice or if the delay is due to justifiable reasons.
So you need to consult a lawyer in service and labour matters and prepare your grounds to rebut the opposite party's contentions
These are only views and others are welcome to correct them.
B.Saikumar
HR & Labour Relations Consultant.
From India, Mumbai
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
Nominee vs legal heir.pdf
CTC_SALARY_SLIP _FORM_(legal)(1 ).xls
HR-LEGAL FORMS.zip