The Supreme Court last week held that dependents of a worker who dies in the course of employment are entitled to compensation both under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and under the Motor Vehicles Act, dismissing the appeal of Oriental Insurance Company. The insurer challenged compensation awarded by the Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal and the Karnataka high court for the death of a Mormugao port trust worker in the course of employment. The port authorities had awarded compensation to the dependents under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The dependents had moved the tribunal before that. The insurance company argued that since the dependents had received compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, they were barred under the Motor Vehicles Act to claim compensation once again. The Supreme Court rejected the contention. It said that the dependents were the first to move the tribunal claiming compensation. In the meantime, the port authorities proceeded under the Workmen’s Compensation Act on their own and awarded damages under that law. Therefore, the dependants had not claimed damages twice; they moved only the tribunal, the judgment said. However, the court adjusted both compensation amounts so that there is no duplication.
Dismissed for long delay
The Supreme Court last week dismissed the appeal of the Lucknow Development Authority, challenging the order of the National Consumer Commission and consumer forums below stating that it approached the commission with appeals after four and a half years. An allottee of plot, Shyam Kapoor, alleged that despite paying the enhanced amount demanded by the authority, he was not allotted the plot he booked. The district forum ordered the authority to allot a plot to him. After that there was inordinate delay in moving the appellate commissions, because of which the appeals were dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal.
Reinstatement not automatic
Fertiliser firms lose case
The Delhi High Court last week dismissed a batch of writ petitions moved by four fertiliser companies seeking to strike down an office memorandum of the Central government which fixed a minimum benchmark for production by their units and release of funds in the form of subsidy with interest. The four writ petitions were moved by Devyani Phosphates Ltd, Narmada Agro Chemicals, V K Phosphates and Agri Green Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. They argued that the minimum benchmark for production of Single Super Sulphate fertiliser, very popular with farmers, was unreasonable and arbitrary. Rejecting the contentions, the high court stated that “the main thrust of the policy introduced by the government is to provide good quality SSP fertiliser in optimum quantities to the farmers. As long as the government is able to achieve this objective, the incidental impact on inefficient manufacturers cannot render the policy in vogue illegal, on the grounds of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. It is well settled in framing economic policies, the government needs a play in the joints.”
Deadline strict in arbitration
The Delhi High Court last week dismissed the petition of the central government which challenged the award of an arbitral tribunal 433 days after the expiry of the time limit set by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. In this case, the dispute involved Hindustan Oil Exploration Ltd, Mafatlal Industries Ltd and Oil and Natural Gas Commission. The high court cited Section 34 of the Act which laid down that an application can be filed within 90 days from the date of receipt of the award. The court, on sufficient and adequate reason, may condone a delay of 30 days thereafter in filing the petition but not thereafter. Once the period of limitation is crossed, the award should be implemented according to the civil procedure. The award becomes immediately enforceable without any further act of the court. Provisions of the Limitation Act have no application in the arbitration law, which is a ‘special legislation’.
Unlike the old Arbitration Act of 1940 the new arbitration law does not give any leeway for the court to condone delays, the judgment said.
Dismissed for long delay
The Supreme Court last week dismissed the appeal of the Lucknow Development Authority, challenging the order of the National Consumer Commission and consumer forums below stating that it approached the commission with appeals after four and a half years. An allottee of plot, Shyam Kapoor, alleged that despite paying the enhanced amount demanded by the authority, he was not allotted the plot he booked. The district forum ordered the authority to allot a plot to him. After that there was inordinate delay in moving the appellate commissions, because of which the appeals were dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal.
Reinstatement not automatic
More From This Section
A daily wage earner is not entitled both to reinstatement and back wages even if he had worked in an establishment for more than 240 days continuously, the Supreme Court emphasised in the case, Assistant Engineer vs Gitam Singh. In this case, the worker was engaged only for eight months in 1991. When he was terminated, he moved the labour court, which asked the Rajasthan Development Corporation to reinstate him with 25 per cent back wages as his termination was violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the labour court, breach of industrial law entitled him to reinstatement and continuity of employment. The Rajasthan high court also approved of it. But the Supreme Court rejected that view. A wrongful termination did not entitle a daily worker to automatic reinstatement with other benefits. It depends on various factors like the method of appointment, nature of employment and length of service, the judgment said.
Fertiliser firms lose case
The Delhi High Court last week dismissed a batch of writ petitions moved by four fertiliser companies seeking to strike down an office memorandum of the Central government which fixed a minimum benchmark for production by their units and release of funds in the form of subsidy with interest. The four writ petitions were moved by Devyani Phosphates Ltd, Narmada Agro Chemicals, V K Phosphates and Agri Green Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. They argued that the minimum benchmark for production of Single Super Sulphate fertiliser, very popular with farmers, was unreasonable and arbitrary. Rejecting the contentions, the high court stated that “the main thrust of the policy introduced by the government is to provide good quality SSP fertiliser in optimum quantities to the farmers. As long as the government is able to achieve this objective, the incidental impact on inefficient manufacturers cannot render the policy in vogue illegal, on the grounds of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. It is well settled in framing economic policies, the government needs a play in the joints.”
Deadline strict in arbitration
The Delhi High Court last week dismissed the petition of the central government which challenged the award of an arbitral tribunal 433 days after the expiry of the time limit set by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. In this case, the dispute involved Hindustan Oil Exploration Ltd, Mafatlal Industries Ltd and Oil and Natural Gas Commission. The high court cited Section 34 of the Act which laid down that an application can be filed within 90 days from the date of receipt of the award. The court, on sufficient and adequate reason, may condone a delay of 30 days thereafter in filing the petition but not thereafter. Once the period of limitation is crossed, the award should be implemented according to the civil procedure. The award becomes immediately enforceable without any further act of the court. Provisions of the Limitation Act have no application in the arbitration law, which is a ‘special legislation’.
Unlike the old Arbitration Act of 1940 the new arbitration law does not give any leeway for the court to condone delays, the judgment said.