Under what circumstances does Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 apply? In a situation where wheel servicing was initially done by four employees due to new kits and modern tools, the management asked for the service to be carried out with three employees. Subsequently, the trade union lodged a complaint before the labor officer. Is this correct?
From India, Erode
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
From India, Erode
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This is a case of either of the following two changes in the service conditions:
1. Rationalization, standardization, or improvement of plant or technique that is likely to lead to the retrenchment of workmen.
2. Any increases or reductions (other than casual) in the number of persons employed or to be employed in any occupation, process, department, or shift, not occasioned by circumstances over which the employer has no control.
If so, a notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act is required.
Regards, Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
44831. Rationalization, standardization, or improvement of plant or technique that is likely to lead to the retrenchment of workmen.
2. Any increases or reductions (other than casual) in the number of persons employed or to be employed in any occupation, process, department, or shift, not occasioned by circumstances over which the employer has no control.
If so, a notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act is required.
Regards, Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If you can prove that the job can be handled by three persons even with old kits, you can have a chance to argue that this is simply a case of surplus staff and only attracts retrenchment but not Section 9-A of the I.D. Act.
B. Saikumar
HR & Labour Law Advisor
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
B. Saikumar
HR & Labour Law Advisor
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
hi seniors respected madhu t k what is the difference between 2A and 2K under id act 1947 pl clarify by s elango
From India, Erode
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Erode
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Section 2A provides that where an employer dismisses, discharges, or terminates an individual employee, he can raise an industrial dispute even if no other workmen or a trade union is a party to the dispute. This new section states that an individual can make an application directly to the Labour Court or such other dispute redressal machinery.
I don't know if there is any Section 2K in the ID Act. But if you mean to say 2(k) and not 2K, then it is nothing but the definition of an industrial dispute, which says that any dispute between a workman and workman, employer and workman/workmen, or employer and employer that is connected with employment and non-employment is an industrial dispute. As such, any difference of opinion about employment or service conditions is an industrial dispute, and at the same time, if an employee is terminated, that act (non-employment) is also a dispute. Please note that the definition of a workman in Section 2(s) includes one who is dismissed or discharged from service.
Regards,
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I don't know if there is any Section 2K in the ID Act. But if you mean to say 2(k) and not 2K, then it is nothing but the definition of an industrial dispute, which says that any dispute between a workman and workman, employer and workman/workmen, or employer and employer that is connected with employment and non-employment is an industrial dispute. As such, any difference of opinion about employment or service conditions is an industrial dispute, and at the same time, if an employee is terminated, that act (non-employment) is also a dispute. Please note that the definition of a workman in Section 2(s) includes one who is dismissed or discharged from service.
Regards,
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Item 11 of the Fourth Schedule must be read in conjunction with Item 10 and Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Courts have not interpreted Item 11 in isolation. For further details, please read the following cases:
Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Employees' Union
Parry & Co. Ltd vs P.C. Pal & Ors.
KEC International v. Kamani (1998)
From India, Indore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Employees' Union
Parry & Co. Ltd vs P.C. Pal & Ors.
KEC International v. Kamani (1998)
From India, Indore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Gathering data for an AI comment.... Sending emails to relevant members...
Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
Industrial Disputes Amendment Act 2010.doc
Industrial Disputes Act 1947.pdf