Course Code: HRM354 Course Title: Labour Laws

Course Instructor: Mr. Ravish Verma Section: Q3E95

Academic Task No.: 02 Academic Task Title: Case Based Assignment

Date of Allotment: 27-08-2019 Date of submission: 02-10-2019

Student’s Roll no: A004 Student’s Reg. no: 11703084

Evaluation Parameters: (Parameters on which student is to be evaluated- To be mentioned by students as

specified at the time of assigning the task by the instructor)

Learning Outcomes: (Student to write briefly about learnings obtained from the academic tasks)
a. Gained knowledge about the different provisions related with the Industrial Disputes Act.
b. Gained knowledge about the policies and procedures that are needs to be followed by the employers
related with I.D. Act.

Declaration:
I declare that this Assignment is my own work. I have not copied it from any other student’s
work or from any other source except where due acknowledgement is made explicitly in the text,
nor has any part been written for me by any other person.

Student’s Signature:

Evaluator’scomments (For Instructor’s use only)

General Observations Suggestions for Improvement Best part of

assignment

Evaluator’s Signature and Date:

Marks Obtained: Max. Marks:_________________

 Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs M/S Hindalco Industries Ltd.

Summary of the Case:

It is the case of the appellant-workman that was appointed as Labour Supervisor in the
employer’s factory on 30.12.1992 and worked continuously in terms of Section 25B of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the I.D. Act) in the said post till 28.7.1998- the day on
which his services were terminated. In the case the appellant- workman has worked for six
calendar years from the date of his appointment till the termination of his service and has
rendered more than 240 days of continuous service in every calendar year before his
termination. The respondent-employer terminated the services of appellant- workman on
27.7.1998 as per practice with the reason sanction expired. The respondent-employer neither
paid retrenchment compensation nor issued any notice or paid wages in lieu of the same to the
appellant-workman as mandated under Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (for short
the U.P. I.D. Act). The respondent-employer engaged the appellant- workman for work against
a post which was permanent in nature but his appointment was made only for a temporary
period from 1992 to 1998 with oblique motive to deprive his statutory rights. At the end of
every working year, the workman was handed over a receipt of relieved from work and after
4-6 days, he was again engaged for three or six months but without proper procedure and in
this manner, he was continuously made to work for full one year and each time the annual
increase in wages was shown in the fresh appointment letter. During the entire period of service
of the appellant-workman with the respondent-employer, the management followed the process
of annually terminating him from service and again reappointing him in the same post by
assigning the same Badge No., ID No. in the same department of Construction Division with
the marginal increase of salary and dearness allowance per month.

It is also noticed by appellant-workman during the course of his employment, that very few
workmen were actually made permanent by the management and rest of the work force was
deprived from the benefit of permanent post by being kept on temporary basis or emergency
basis, on daily wage basis or on contract basis. Even though the Construction Division of the
employer has been in existence ever since the beginning of its establishment and is necessary
for continuous productions in factory.

It is also found that the respondent-employer neither complied with the aforesaid mandatory
provisions nor did the respondent pay retrenchment compensation or issue three months’ notice
or notice pay in lieu of the same. Therefore, as per the appellant-workman, termination from
his service is in contravention of the provisions of the U.P. I.D. Act and the legal principle laid
down by this Court in catena of cases in this regard which will be adverted into the reasoning
portion of the judgment. Therefore, the appellant-workman had raised an industrial dispute
with a request to the state government to make reference for adjudication of existing industrial
dispute regarding the termination of service of the appellant workman from his service by the
employer.
Key Issues/problems that has been found in the case.

Here, in the Case “Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs M/S Hindalco Industries Ltd”, has a lots of
contradiction from both employee side as well as from the employer side. Prior to the
mentioned case the issues associated with the case are cited below:

1. The first problem that has found was an unfair labour practices with the appellant-
workmen in the organization as the employers was not treating the workmen as the
permanent worker even after appellant-workmen have rendered the services more than
240 days in every calendar year before his termination.
2. It has noticed that majority the work force was deprived from the benefit of permanent
post by being kept on temporary basis or emergency basis, on daily wage basis or on
contract basis, even though the workmen has been working in the establishment from
the beginning.
3. It has also found that the appellant workmen had been retrenched from the service
without any pre notice and without any retrenchment compensation which is the
mandatory provision comply with all the employers and the same had been
contravened.
4. The Reinstatement with back wages and other consequent benefits to the appellant
workmen had also not been provided by the employer.
5. It has also found that the respondent employer was not complying the various
provisions related with the factory Act, payment of wages Act, Industrial Disputes Act
and other related provision.
6. There was also a problem related with the incremental of the basic wages and dearness
allowances as the employees has not been provided with any increase in their basic
wages and DA.
7. There was no proper communication and unity of command in the company and the
problems of the workmen were not being resolve on immediate basis.
8. The workmen of the company were also not been provided all their benefits and rights
that complies with the employer and the workmen were also been paid as a contractual
worker.
The key Provisions related with Industrial Disputes Act with the case and The Role of
Court in resolving the issues.

1. As per the Section 6N of the U.P. I.D. Act- No workman employed in any industry who
has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be
retrenched by that employer until,
a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons
for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired or the workman has been paid
in lieu of such notice wages for the period of the notice;
b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall
be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of service or
any part thereof in excess of six months; and
c) Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the State Government.
2. As per the Section 25N under sub- section (4) of I.D. Act- every workman who is
employed in that establishment immediately before the date of application for
permission under this section shall be entitled to receive, at the time of retrenchment,
compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every
completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months.
3. As per the Section 25T in The I.D. Act, - No employer or workman or a trade union,
whether registered under the Trader Unions Act, 1926 (16 of 1926), or not, shall commit
any unfair labour practice.
4. As per the Section 25U in The I.D. Act,- person who commits any unfair labour
practice shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six
months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.
5. As per the labour court for noncompliance of the mandatory requirement under Section
6N of the U.P. I.D. Act. The order of termination against the appellant is rendered void
ab initio in law, therefore, the appellant is entitled to be reinstated with back wages and
consequential benefits.
6. The court had also investigated that the periods of service extends to close to 6 years
save the artificial breaks made by the employer with an motive so as to retain the
appellant-workmen as a temporary worker and deprive the appellant of his statutory
right of permanent worker status. The aforesaid conduct of the employer perpetuates
unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra) of the I.D. Act, which is not
permissible in view of Sections 25T and 25U of the I.D. Act.
7. The employer, in order to mitigate its conduct towards the appellant-workmen has
claimed that the appellant was appointed solely on contract basis, and his service has
been terminated in the manner permissible under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the I.D. Act.
However, The labour court has not accepted this contention of the respondent for the
following reasons:
a) Firstly, the respondent has not produced any material evidence on record
before the Labour Court to prove that it meets all the required criteria
under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, to be
eligible to employ employees on contractual basis which includes
license number etc.
b) Secondly, the respondent could not produce any material evidence on
record before the Labour Court to show that the appellant was employed
for any particular project on the completion of which his service has
been terminated through non-renewal of his contract of employment.
8. The Labour Court in the impugned judgment and hold that the appellant is entitled to
award retrenchment compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and also reinstatement with full
back wages from the date of the termination of his service till the date of his
reinstatement and other consequential benefits which accrue to him by virtue of his
employment with the respondent company.
Recommendations/Suggestions

Hence, after analysing the whole case, followings are the few recommendations/suggestions
that can be implemented to resolve the issue that has been risen because of various reasons:

1. The company should have to provide all the facilities as per the policy made by the
government and there should not be any unfair labour practices in the company.
2. At the time of initial appointment, the workmen should be complying and aware with
all the conditions and services prescribed under the policy of the company and the
company should also have to treat the workmen whether they are contractual workmen
or permanent workmen of the company.
3. When a company is willing to termination/retrenched an employee, they should provide
a pre notice to the workmen before one months of retrenchment and at the time of
retrenchment, the retrenchment benefits should also have to provide by the employer.
4. As the workmen were deprived from getting theirs rights as regular employees, the
company can compensate those workmen with some kind of increased monetary
benefits along with the wage increase and DA which may fulfil their additional demand.
5. If any workmen serving the company for more than 5 years, company should benefit
the workmen with permanent recognition along with all the services as of regular
workmen as per the Law. As, the company have to follow all the provision of Labour
Law.
6. There should be a clear code of conduct between the employee and the employer in the
company while going for any agreement, all the terms and conditions from wage rate,
working hour, over time, rest room, and all others services have to be mentioned.
7. The services of the workmen should have to regularise by the company not as a matter
of right of the workmen arising under any situation but with a view to eradicate unfair
labour practices and in equity to undo social injustice and as a measure of labour
welfare.

8. There should be the participation of workers in the management of the industrial unit

and it should be encouraged by making effective use of works committees, joint

consultation and other methods. This will improve communication between managers
and workers, increase productivity and lead to greater effectiveness.
9. There must be an atmosphere of mutual cooperation, confidence, and respect.

Management should adopt a progressive outlook, and should recognise the right of

workers.

10. The Government should play an active role for promoting industrial peace. It should

make law for the compulsory recognition of a representative union in each industrial

unit. It should intervene to settle disputes if the management and the workers are
unable to settle their disputes. This will restore industrial peace.