Senior Advocates in India for Regular Bail

asked 2018-11-19 04:13:36 -0500

MistyWoole gravatar image

" It may be stated here that there was a dispute about the working hours also and the Tribunal changed the working hours from 9-30 a. As I have said above, the second of the two alternatives is really applicable to the present case. Reference was made to cl. 20 of the Act, the conciliation proceedings must be deemed to have commenced on July 26, 1955, when the notice of the strike was received by the Conciliation Officer, and those proceedings shall be deemed to have concluded when the report of the Conciliation Officer is received by the Government.

After hearing the parties the Tribunal made its award on August 18, 1955. to all workers over their present wages and proportionate increase in the dearness allowance, details whereof we shall state at a later stage. The reference set forth in a sub-joined schedule the matters upon which adjudication was necessary, and the schedule contained twenty terms of reference out of which the two items with which we are now concerned related to (a) fixation of grades and scales of pay including the question whether the new scales should be given retrospective effect from January 1, 1953, and (b) bonus for each of the years 1951, 1952 and 1953.

The learned Tribunal considered this application without any notice to the present appellant and corrected the error by amending the figure 39 to 36. 8 of the terms of reference the Tribunal said:- " Since the company is allowed by law to take 48 hours work in a week from its employees, it is only legal service in Chandigarh fair that if a worker puts in over-time work in any week within a -total of 48 working hours, he should be Chandigarh law firms only paid at the single rate for all over-time work that he puts in between 39 and 48 hours in the week.

in paragraph 23 of the award that the working hours of a workman should be 36 hours a week. The question of over-time arose only if a workman was asked to Work in excess of the working hours fixed by the Tribunal. On October 12, 1955, the Union made an application in which it stated that the figure " 39 " occurring in paragraph 24 of the award relating to over-time payment was obviously a mistake for " 36 "

edit retag flag offensive close delete