Incentives for cement firms upheld

LEGAL DIGEST

The Supreme Court last week dismissed the appeal of the Himachal Pradesh government against the high court order in favour of Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd and Associated Cement Ltd in a dispute over incentive scheme for cement units in the state.

Earlier, the companies were given sales tax exemptions in view of the investments made in the state and the good performance they recorded on various parameters.

However, the attitude of the government changed later, and they were served show cause notices. They were asked to pay purchase tax on royalty arguing that what was being taxed was the consideration as minerals were being removed.

The companies moved the high court, which quashed the orders of the sales tax authorities. The high court also held that the levy of purchase tax on the royalty was illegal. The state appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the high court judgment on all counts.

'Settle labour disputes fast'

The Supreme Court last week urged state governments to make references in labour disputes within a reasonable time to avoid harassment to the employers and the employees alike. In the case of General Manager vs Rudhan Singh, the reference of the dispute to the industrial tribunal was made eight years after the termination of the employee.

The judgment said, "A labour dispute should be resolved expeditiously and there is no justification for the government to sleep over the matter and make a reference after a long period of time at its sweet will. It causes prejudice both to the workman and also to the employer. It is not possible for an employer to retain all the documents for a long period and then to produce evidence after years. The employer is not at fault if the reference is not made expeditiously, but it is saddled with an award directing payment of back wages without having taken any work from the workman. The plight of the workman who is thrown out of employment is equally bad as it is a question of survival of his family."

Insurance ruling to be reviewed

The Supreme Court asked the National Consumer Commission last week to reconsider its decision in the appeal of United India Assurance Co Ltd in a claim for damage to a car which was destroyed when a tree fell on it. The policy had excluded liability in case of damage arising from natural calamities like flood, hurricane, cyclone and storm.

In this case, the complaint initially said there was a storm during which a branch of a tree fell on the car damaging it. Later, a certificate of the meteorological department was produced stating that there was no storm on that day.

The district consumer forum, the state and national consumer commissions ruled that the insurance company was liable to pay the expenses for repair of the car.

Moreover, as the car was being used as a taxi, compensation was allowed for the loss of hiring charges. On the appeal of the insurance company, the Supreme Court asked the national commission to re-examine the evidence in view of the contradictions.

Ruling reserved on casual labour

A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court headed by the chief justice on Thursday closed arguments and reserved judgment on the right of casual and daily wage workers for absorption in the establishments.

There is no law governing their rights at present, though many government and PSU projects employ them in large numbers. The high courts and the Supreme Court have not been taking uniform view of this issue. Therefore, the judgment in this case will have far-reaching implications.