HEADNOTE: (prabhjit & aakash) The appellant was convicted of an offence under s.

92 of the Factories Act, 1948, for working a salt works without obtaining a licence. The salt works extended over an area of about 250 acres' The only buildings on this land were temporary shelters for the resident labour and for an office ; at some places ,there where pucca platforms for fixing the water pump where

Chintaram rao vs state of mp(preet )

HEADNOTE: The appellant was the manager of a bidi factory which had contracts with certain independent contractors, known as Sattedars, for the supply of bidis. The Sattedars undertook to supply the bidis by manufacturing them in their own factories or by entrusting the work to third parties, a' a price to. be paid by the management after delivery and approval. The Inspector of Factories found working in the appellant's factory certain Sattedars and their coolies who had come to deliver bides manufactured by them. The appellant was prosecuted and convicted under s. 92, Factories Act for violation of the provisions of ss. 62 and 63 for failure to maintain the register of adult workers and for allowing the workers to work in the factory without making beforehand the entries of their attendance in the register :

Manufacturing process- Pulkit & vasim

LANCASTER LABORATORIES, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent. (1992) Lancaster first contends that this court erroneously denied the manufacturing exclusion because 201(c) of the Code only requires the transformation of personal property to a "form, composition or character different from that in which it is acquired whether for sale or use by the manufacturer." Lancaster argues that the regulatory definition of manufacturing at 61 Pa.Code 32.1, which provides that the transformed [ 148 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 469 ] property "shall result in a different product having a distinctive name, character

and use," defeats the legislative intent found in the statutory definition by adding the requirement of the production of tangible property. Alternatively, Lancaster asserts that the written report produced for the client, which reflects Lancaster's analyses of the samples, constitutes the product which satisfies the tangible property requirement.

Factories act: ( prabhjit & aakash)

JUDGMENT Sharma, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Sardar inder Singh and Krishi Sahkarini Samiti, Bhimnagar, through its Secretary, Satya Pal Singh, against the State of Rajasthan, the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, the Anti Ejectment Officer, Bayana, and 23 other respondents, who were applicants before the Anti Ejectment Officer in 23 different cases under Section 7, Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 (NO. IX Of 1949).

Bench: R Gulati (preet) ORDER R.L. Gulati, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Municipal Board, Hathras. 2. The petitioner Board runs a water works for the supply of water to the town of Hathras. On 23rd of January, 1967, the Enforcement Officer appointed under the Emergency Risks (Factories) Insurance Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') served a notice requiring the Board to pay a total sum of Rs. 10,711.00 as arrears of premia from 1963 upto date, as the Board had failed to take out insurance in respect of the water works. The petitioner Board was also required to pay a sum of Rs. 5,360/- as compounding fee. As the premia and the compounding fee was not paid, proceedings were initiated under Section 35 of the U. P. Municipalities Act for its recovery. The petitioned has challenged the demand as also the recovery proceedings.

Factory act: pulkit & vasim

The State vs Hathiwala Textile Mills And Ors. on 30 November, 1956

The case was tried in a summary way and the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Surat. came to the conclusion that the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, and the scheme thereunder were not applicable to the factory of Hathiwala Textile Mills on the dates of the alleged offences because the number of workers in the Mills was less than 50 and, consequently, on the second point as to the liability of the respondents also he held that they were not guilty. That is how this appeal against acquittal has been filed on behalf of the State.

Minimum Wages India Current Minimum Wage Rate India

Legislative protection for workers to receive a minimum wage, can be considered as the hall mark of any progressive nation. It is one of the fundamental premises of decent work. In India, the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 provides for fixation and enforcement of minimum wages inrespect of scheduled employments.
1

The Act aims to prevent sweating or exploitation of labour ( According to the NSSO (2004-05) 61st round, around 395 million workers (86%) out of the total workforce of around 457 million workers constitute the unorganized/informal sector. In fact 7% of those employed in organized sector has been identified as informal workers raising the toll of informal sector to 422 million (92%). )through payment of low wages by ensuring a minimum subsistence wage for workers. The Act also requires the appropriate government (both at Centre and States) to fix minimum rates of wages inrespect of employments specified in the schedule and also review and revise the same at intervals not exceeding five years.

Currently, the number of scheduled employments in the Central sphere is 45 whereas in the States sphere the number is 1596 (when all states are counted). With effect from November 2009, the National Floor Level of Minimum Wage has been increased to Rs 100 per day from Rs 80 per day (which was in effect since 2007). Recently with effect from April 1, 2011 the National Floor Level of Minimum Wage has been raised to Rs 115 per day.

Since the respective state governments have been empowered to independently fix minimum wages,

disparities between wages in neighboring states are common. In order to reduce this problem and bring comparability the Central government has set up 5 regional committees (table below) for harmonization of minimum wages
2

Wiluszynski v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [1989]

Facts
Mr Marek Wilusyzynski was a member of the trade union, the National and Local Government Officers Association, whose strike plan was to refuse to answer enquiries from the Liberal/SDP controlled council members. This was only a very small proportion of his duties as a housing officer, because he dealt mainly with complaints directly from tenants. He made up three hours of work after five weeks of industrial action. Yet the council had warned that no payment would be mad if work was not performed. John Hendy and Jeremy McMullen for Marek. The first instance court said there had been substantial performance of the job, and management acquiesced in the variation. [edit]Judgment Nicholls LJ in the Court of Appeal held that no payment was due to the striking workers, because they had only partly performed an entire obligation of their contracts.