Definition of 'employer'

LEGAL DIGEST

The Supreme Court has given a wider definition of the term 'employer' in its recent judgement. The term embraces not only a person who employs another permanently or on a temporary basis, but also those who are in control of the workman temporarily lent or let on hire to the employer, the Supreme Court has ruled with reference to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

In the judgement Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank vs Shahjadi Begum, the government had requisitioned a jeep owned by the bank. The driver of the jeep, while obeying the orders of the government officers, died in an accident.

The widow filed a claim petition under the Act. The commissioner of compensation held the bank liable to pay the compensation. The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld that view. The bank appealed to the Supreme Court, which set aside the high court judgement and took a contrary view.

According to the Supreme Court, the definition of employer under the legislation is broad. In this case, the jeep was requisitioned under law and the bank had no choice but to provide it to the government. Under this contract, therefore, the driver became the workman of the requisitioning authority as he was under its complete control. Thus the state is liable to pay the compensation, the court held.

Recognition of unions

The Supreme Court has directed the industrial court in Mumbai to decide as soon as possible the dispute between two rival trade unions regarding recognition under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.

The two unions are the Vegetable Vitamin Foods Employees' Union and Sarva Shramik Sangh. Recognition is given to the union which has at least 30 per cent membership in the industry in the six months immediately prior to the application for recognition. The inquiry should be conducted by the industrial court.

The Bombay High Court directed the industrial court that the membership in the case of one union should be done according to the 1988 figures while in the case of the other, it should be done according to the 2003 figures.

The Supreme Court stated that this would clearly create confusion in the matter. Therefore, it directed the industrial court to dispose of the applications taking the cut-off date as January 1 this year.

Award by industrial tribunal

The Supreme Court has stated that when an award is passed by an industrial tribunal at the national level, all employees, whether members of the unions or not, would be covered by it. No person can argue that he was not heard before passing the award. This ruling was made in the judgement Punjab National Bank vs Manjeet Singh.

In this case, deposit collectors of New Bank of India, which was merged with Punjab National Bank, were required to be absorbed as regular staff after passing the qualifying exam.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the direction of the tribunal to absorb them as regular staff, as they were not heard by the tribunal. The Supreme Court stated that according to Section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the award would be binding on all employees.