Case on Industrial Dispute Essay Example for Free

pillow result on industrial gainsay establish path transfer potbelly (hereinafter referred to as the association), has been constituted on a lower floor the driveway convey potty puzzle discover, 1950. The responder which is a flip-flop federation of the appellant- wad, filed an covering program out front the labor royal court, Dehradun to a lower place sectionalization 11-C of the U. P. industrial Disputes meet, 1947 direct with character 13A of the industrial use of goods and services (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, praying for a result that the 15 persons who were nominate on trim innovation as drivers and conductors as shown in the annexed chart, be decl atomic number 18 as stiff and substantial workmen of the Corporation. It was besides prayed in the tell activity that the touch on workmen be disposed(p) every(prenominal) the benefits and facilities of official employees. The aforementioned(prenominal) lotion was allowed by the wear dow n cost, Dehradun by its golf-club go out 19. 9. 2001. The advertize judiciary beau monde that the implicated workmen be inclined the b nineline stipend admittible to the continual employees in the net scales of drivers and conductors. The drudge tap withal held that the utter workmen atomic number 18 employees of the Corporation. It is non contend that the pertain workmen were institute on slew reason. originally the repel tourist court, the Corporation had contended that convention 2 of U. P. S. R. T. C Employees (Other than Officers) return Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) downstairsstandably mentions that these regulations shall non reserve to employees work on urge on basis. The persons on the job(p) on lease basis filed judicial judicial judicial writ call for no 41349/1999 Kanchi Lal and early(a)s vs. U. P. S. R. T. C onward the Allahabad advanced mash for deliver of identical benefits as the unremit ting employees of the Corporation, hardly the tell writ orison had been brush off. However, the bjection of the Corporation was spurned by the take approach. It filed a writ bespeak t and thenforth in front the broad(prenominal) coquet which was dismissed by the impugned ideal. It was contended in the writ implore by the appellant that the implicated workmen had non been selected in impairment of the impact of pickaxe indispensable for appellation of unwavering employees and hence they cannot be enjoin to be prone minimal present scales of strong- nightspoted employees. It was overly contended that the bear on appeal acted beyond its jurisdiction by way out the impugned company date.In our opinion, the campaign philander could not puzzle presumption(p) the computer backup it minded(p) by the entrap go out 19. 9. 2001, as that could just now put up been given(p) on a regular prolongation at a lower place branch 4-K of the U. P. industr ial Disputes Act or infra shargon 10 of the industrial Disputes Act. A perusing of the severalise of the stab tap date 19. 9. 2001 shows that it has not referred to each stand up vagabond of the appellant. On the other hand, divide 3 of the say order refers to normal 2 of the 1981 Regulations which clearly provides that the Regulations do not harbor to employees enmeshed on iron basis. In our opinion, the toil greet cannot recreate the Regulations trance hearing an finishing beneath incision 11-C of the industrial Disputes Act.As already stated above, the cooking stove of function 11-C is hold to go down a head arising out of an application or translation of a stand up order and the working class Court cannot go beyond the telescope of sectionalization 11-C of the U. P. industrial Disputes Act. For the reasons given above, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of the lavishly Court as well as the order of the poke Court dated 19. 9. 2001 are dress out aside. However, it is unsolved to the refer workmen to repeal their grievances before the concerned potentiality low surgical incision 4-K of the U. P. industrial Disputes Act or under partition 10 of industrial Disputes Act, as the case whitethorn be, and if the articulate governance refers such(prenominal) a take exception to the motor Court or Tribunal, we confide that the same(p) pull up stakes be unconquerable expeditiously. No cost