Page 17 - BANKING FINANCE JANUARY 2016 ONLINE
P. 17
LEGAL UPDATE
Right to property a hu- No court intervention to trade union rivalry
man right; SC rebuked The Supreme Court has refused to in- company alleged that the new union
terfere in the long-standing rivalry be- had not maintained any records to sup-
the state for "failure to tween two trade unions of Force Mo- port the claim.
tors Ltd (earlier Bajaj Tempo Ltd) stat-
discharge duty" ing that the decision of the Bombay When the matter was taken to the
High Court should be adhered to in the industrial court it appointed an inves-
A procrastinated legal tussle span- facts of the case. tigator. After his report, the industrial
ning over three court accepted the contention of the
decades has spi- The rivalry started in 2003 when Poona Poona union.
ralled up the judi- Employees Union sought
cial tiers to the recognition under the The high court reversed its
Supreme Court Maharashtra Recognition decision, leading to the
seeking a quietus of Trade Unions and Pre- special leave petition in
to the issue of ad- vention of Unfair Labour 2010. After five years, the
Practices Act and the existing union, Supreme Court has now
equate reparation of the land own- Bhartiya Kamgar Sena, resisted it. stated that its extraordinary powers
ers consequent upon the compulsory under Article 136 should be invoked
acquisition of their lands for the In- The Poona union claimed that there only in rare cases of miscarriage of jus-
dian Army for its field firing range in was an exodus of members of the rival tice and not in a case like this.
1981," the court prefaced its judg- union to it and thus it had 85 per cent
ment in the case, Rukmani Devi vs of the workers. The company main- "In the interest of industrial orderli-
Jaipur Development Authority. tained that the Poona union had less ness, stability, peace and overall well-
than 30 per cent of the workers as being as well, we find no persuasive
Possession of the village land was members, which was the mandatory reason to intervene at this distant
taken in 1983. The land owners' requirement under law. Moreover, the point of time," the judgment con-
grievance was that they did not get cluded.
the promised grant of 15 per cent
developed residential land in lieu of Penalty for PF default discretionary
compensation promised by the urban
development authority and the The Calcutta High Court has ruled that missioner. The authorities can take into
Rajasthan government. the power of the provident fund com- consideration factors like frequency of
missioner to impose penalty on em- the delays, the number of days de-
Allowing the appeals of the land ployers who delay their contribution is layed, power cuts, non-realisation of
owners, the court asked the authori- limited by certain considerations. Sec- debts by the employer, the delay on
ties to allot the promised developed tions 14A and 32A of the Provident the part of the authorities to claim
land to the oustees within six weeks. Fund Act grant the authori-
ties the power to recover damages and whether the
In the 120-page judgment, the court penalty not exceeding the company has been declared
reiterated that right to property was amount of arrears and sick.
a human right and rebuked the state specify the rate of penalty.
for its "failure to discharge an But the authorities have The court clarified that
obligatory duty defined by public the discretion to reduce it. though the authorities
policy without any justification in the could reduce the amount of penalty or
context of the sacrosanct content of The argument of the authorities that damages, that discretion could not be
human rights in the Constitution. they cannot reduce the penalty was re- used to waive it altogether. Before
jected by the high court in the case, levying and recovering such damages,
" It said that there was "an inexcus- Topcon International Ltd vs RPF Com- the employer shall be given a reason-
able failure of the state to discharge able opportunity of being heard.
its solemn constitutional obligation,
the live purpose for its existence."
BANKING FINANCE | JANUARY | 2016 | 17
Copyright@ The Insurance Times. 09883398055 / 09883380339
