Skip to main content

Penalties under Industrial Disputes Act,1947

 Below are the various penalties under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-


Section 26 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides a penalty for illegal strikes and lockouts. According to section 26(1), a penalty can be imposed on any workman who satisfies the two conditions i) continues, commences any act in furtherance of a strike. ii) The strike must be illegal under this Act. A workman who is found guilty shall be punished with imprisonment, which may extend to one month, or a fine that may extend to fifty rupees or both.

Section 26(2) of the Act provides punishment for the employer. According to it an employer who commences or continues any acts in furtherance of a lockout and such lockout is illegal. Such employer shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one month or a fine of one thousand rupees (maximum) or maybe punished with both.

It is to be noted that only criminal courts have a competent jurisdiction for taking the cognizance of such offense and not any authorities established under the Industrial Disputes Act. And the complainant is the appropriate government under this Act.

Section 27 provides the penalty for instigation, etc. According to this section whoever instigate others to take part in any kind of illegal lock-out or strike, incite others to take part in illegal lock-out or illegal strike or acting in furtherance of a lock-out or strike which is illegal may be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months or fine which may extend to rupees one thousand or with both.

Under section 27, the punishment is not provided only to a workman or employer but also to any person who satisfies the ingredient of this section.

Section 28 speaks about penalty for giving financial aid to illegal strikes and lock-outs. According to this section, any person who knowingly provides any financial aid to illegal strikes and lock-outs shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with a fine of Rs. one thousand or with both.

Under Section 28 any person may be punished if the person satisfies the ingredients of it and not necessarily be any workman or employer.

Section 29 lays the penalty for breach of settlement or award. According to this section, any person who satisfies the ingredients of this section shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with a fine or with both. And if the offense is a continuing one then the court may increase the fine to rupees 200 for every day during such breach.

The following ingredients need to be satisfied-

  1. Breach of an award or settlement for the time being in force.

  2. The award or settlement must be valid.

  3. The award or settlement must be binding.

  4. The accused must be responsible for the breach.

  5. The complainant must be the appropriate government.

Section 30 provides penalty for disclosing confidential information. Mens rea is necessary under this section. Any person who wilfully discloses any confidential information which are laid under section 21 of this Act shall be punished imprisonment which may extend to six months or fine which may extend to rupees one thousand or with both.

Section 30-A provides penalty for closure without notice. An employer shall be punishable with a term of imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to rupees five thousand or with both.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more