Change in job conditions upheld

LEGAL DIGEST

The Supreme Court has held that in the case of transfer of undertakings to a new owner or management, the employees of the previous establishment will be entitled to notice and compensation only if their employment terms and conditions are changed to their disadvantage.

The court was hearing the case of Mettur Beardsell Ltd. The company fell sick in the 1970s and its shares and ownership changed hands during several attempts to revive it. Workers of certain divisions of the company were not satisfied with the new conditions and moved the labour court, which dismissed their claim under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The Madras High Court allowed their appeal. The Supreme Court, after interpreting the scope of the provision, set aside the high court judgment and upheld the transfer of the employees on the terms offered to them.

No duty on wetting agent

The Supreme Court has set aside a decision of the Customs, Excise, Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in the case, Quinn India Ltd versus Commissioner of Central Excise, and ruled that Penetrator 4983, used as a wetting agent for improving the penetration of dye solvent does not come under the tax net. It is used in the textile, paper and leather industries.

The tribunal had held that the goods manufactured by the company were not commercially and popularly known as service active agents and were different products, commercially having different names, characters and uses than the service active agents from which they were produced.

The Supreme Court, accepting a chemical examiner's report, overruled this view and held that no duty was payable.

Appeal against Tata Tele upheld

The National Consumer Commission has stated in the case, Tata Teleservices Ltd versus Pankaj Kumar, "It is clear that there is no transparency and clarity in the billing system followed by the company." The petitioner disputed the bill. The Delhi consumer forum and the state commission asked the company to pay him Rs 5,000 compensation.

The company appealed to the national commission, which examined the billing method followed by the company and said it was difficult for consumers to understand and follow the terms of the contract, which led to the petitioner's cheque being dishonoured.

Dismissing the appeal, the national commission remarked: "The company is in the business of rendering service of mobile connections and other related activities. It is not in a business of financial/merchant banking/lending institutions who can take advantage of a cheque being dishonoured before due date of payment."

Labour court can't interfere on own

When an inquiry by the disciplinary authority in an establishment is conducted fairly and properly, without any allegation of victimisation or unfair labour practice, the labour court has no power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the management.

This observation was made by the Supreme Court in the case, General Secretary, S Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union versus Managing Director.

The labour court has no power to reappraise the evidence to find out whether the findings of the inquiry officer are correct or not or whether the punishment imposed is adequate or not.

The labour court can interfere with the findings only if they are perverse, the Supreme Court has ruled. These observations were made in the case of a worker who was reverted to his old post for negligence, causing loss to the company. The court reiterated its stand that an inquiry could not be considered vitiated because it was conducted by an officer of the management.