Dear sujoyroy,
In the instant thread we have been discussing a serious issue, which relates to "legal advice for a mishappening at site" raised by one of the citeHR member.Suddently you have intiated a new issue of mother-child relationship,which is completely unconnected with the ongoing thread.The senior members of this Forum have been time & often advising the members to intiate a new thread on new subjects, In that case the continuity of ongoing subject remains unbroken and members' option for the contributing their views or opinion remains open.You will appreciate that if one thread contains different issues,it creates more confusion than the solution to the problem,which queriest looks for.
BS Kalsi
Member since Aug 2011
From India, Mumbai
455In the instant thread we have been discussing a serious issue, which relates to "legal advice for a mishappening at site" raised by one of the citeHR member.Suddently you have intiated a new issue of mother-child relationship,which is completely unconnected with the ongoing thread.The senior members of this Forum have been time & often advising the members to intiate a new thread on new subjects, In that case the continuity of ongoing subject remains unbroken and members' option for the contributing their views or opinion remains open.You will appreciate that if one thread contains different issues,it creates more confusion than the solution to the problem,which queriest looks for.
BS Kalsi
Member since Aug 2011
From India, Mumbai
respected seniors,
as advised i have filed a case against management in the labour court of delhi. today i accompanied my advocate for filing the case in the above mentioned labour court but they have refused to even accept my papers by informing me that this case can not be filed in the labour court of delhi because my gross salary was more than 18000/- and further asked me to file a civil case in the matter because ur case is not under id act, moreover, they further advised me to approach the labour court faridabad, if they accept the case. it is very interesting to note that in one way they are claiming that this case can not be admitted because my salary is more than 18000/- on other hand they are asking me to approach labour court faridabad. i m quit confused.i would like to add my appointment letter was issued to me from delhi but my working construction site was at faridabad where this mishappening happened.my gross salary on the last day of working was rs.fifty thousand only per month.as per the clause no.7 of appointment letter ANY DISPUTES BETWEEN YOUR SELF AND THE COMPANY CONCERNING OR RELATING TO OR ARISING OUT OF THIS CONTRACT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF DELHI AND BE DETERMINED BY THE COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN DELHI ONLY.
please help me with a professional advice because i m not getting the right direction to come out of this mess.
thanks and regards
vinit soni
8860410213
From India, New Delhi
as advised i have filed a case against management in the labour court of delhi. today i accompanied my advocate for filing the case in the above mentioned labour court but they have refused to even accept my papers by informing me that this case can not be filed in the labour court of delhi because my gross salary was more than 18000/- and further asked me to file a civil case in the matter because ur case is not under id act, moreover, they further advised me to approach the labour court faridabad, if they accept the case. it is very interesting to note that in one way they are claiming that this case can not be admitted because my salary is more than 18000/- on other hand they are asking me to approach labour court faridabad. i m quit confused.i would like to add my appointment letter was issued to me from delhi but my working construction site was at faridabad where this mishappening happened.my gross salary on the last day of working was rs.fifty thousand only per month.as per the clause no.7 of appointment letter ANY DISPUTES BETWEEN YOUR SELF AND THE COMPANY CONCERNING OR RELATING TO OR ARISING OUT OF THIS CONTRACT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF DELHI AND BE DETERMINED BY THE COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN DELHI ONLY.
please help me with a professional advice because i m not getting the right direction to come out of this mess.
thanks and regards
vinit soni
8860410213
From India, New Delhi
Sir(s),
1.The officer of the Construction Company, who started this thread for suggestions from seniors as per facts furnished by him is neither a "workman" under Industrial Disputes Act,1947, nor an "employee" under the provisions of The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. Section 58 of The Building & Other Construction workers (Regu. of Employment and conditions of Service) Act, 1996 entitles the "building workers" for compensation under said Act. But the Officer, in my opinion, is not a "building worker" as defined under The Building & Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996. Sections 44 & 45 of this Act lays down specifically about the responsibilities of the employers under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, but the same applies only for "building worker" as defined under section 2(e) of said Act.
2. In addition, in my opinion, as pointed out in above remarks the construction site is located at Faridabad. Therefore, the jurisdiction of Delhi labour Court is doubtful since the building construction site located in Faridabad is required to comply with the rules or Act as applicable in Faridabad/Haryana. In my opinion, any para of agreement between employer and employee regarding jurisdiction of any court with reference to provisions specifically made in the laws has no meaning and is not enforceable.
3. I understand that Sh.Varghese Mathew, has rightly mentioned the correct legal position in his remarks earlier in this thread. So far as I understand, the labour laws are helpful only in respect of employees or workers etc. as defined in the various laws and while defining such words as "employee" or "worker" the officers of higher level or middle level working in supervisory or managerial etc. level as left out by raising also limit of wages and left either at the mercy of the employers or left to go to a long long spell of litigation in a civil suit.
From India, Noida
1.The officer of the Construction Company, who started this thread for suggestions from seniors as per facts furnished by him is neither a "workman" under Industrial Disputes Act,1947, nor an "employee" under the provisions of The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. Section 58 of The Building & Other Construction workers (Regu. of Employment and conditions of Service) Act, 1996 entitles the "building workers" for compensation under said Act. But the Officer, in my opinion, is not a "building worker" as defined under The Building & Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996. Sections 44 & 45 of this Act lays down specifically about the responsibilities of the employers under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, but the same applies only for "building worker" as defined under section 2(e) of said Act.
2. In addition, in my opinion, as pointed out in above remarks the construction site is located at Faridabad. Therefore, the jurisdiction of Delhi labour Court is doubtful since the building construction site located in Faridabad is required to comply with the rules or Act as applicable in Faridabad/Haryana. In my opinion, any para of agreement between employer and employee regarding jurisdiction of any court with reference to provisions specifically made in the laws has no meaning and is not enforceable.
3. I understand that Sh.Varghese Mathew, has rightly mentioned the correct legal position in his remarks earlier in this thread. So far as I understand, the labour laws are helpful only in respect of employees or workers etc. as defined in the various laws and while defining such words as "employee" or "worker" the officers of higher level or middle level working in supervisory or managerial etc. level as left out by raising also limit of wages and left either at the mercy of the employers or left to go to a long long spell of litigation in a civil suit.
From India, Noida
Hello Vinit Soni,
This thread has been referred to the Legal Members of this Forum for their expert suggestions.
But, prima facie, I think your advocate should have alerted you on the legal position of the issues you mentioned--where to file the case & whether you can move the Labor Court at all--even BEFORE the step presently taken.
Suggest wait for the Legal members to respond.
Rgds,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
This thread has been referred to the Legal Members of this Forum for their expert suggestions.
But, prima facie, I think your advocate should have alerted you on the legal position of the issues you mentioned--where to file the case & whether you can move the Labor Court at all--even BEFORE the step presently taken.
Suggest wait for the Legal members to respond.
Rgds,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
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.
CTC_SALARY_SLIP _FORM_(legal)(1 ).xls
Nominee vs legal heir.pdf
HR-LEGAL FORMS.zip