GROUP 3

AMBER DUBEY 13P062

DHRUV MISHRA 13P072
MANASVI BALI 13P082
MANPREET KHANUJA 13P083
NIKHIL GANGIL 13P092
RAJ SHEKHAR DUTTA 13P102

 RDIs

argument that since it is an NGO, it is

not an industry is inherently flawed.
Judicial precedent: Bangalore Water Supply
and Sewage Board vs. A.Rajappa, wherein
the Supreme Court held that absence of
profit-making motive was not relevant for
determining whether an enterprise is an
industry or not.
RDIs plea that it cant be treated as an
industry isnt justified in accordance with
SCs definition of industry and above judicial
precedent.

 All

the permanent employees except the 14

managerial personnel and 7 supervisor
category employees can be classified as
workmen as per section 2(s) of IDA.
Apart from them, the 26 temporary project
employees can also be classified as
workmen.
The managerial personnel and supervisor
category employees are employed in
managerial or supervisory capacity and hence
cant be called workmen.

Every person employed in an establishment for hire or reward

including contract labour, apprentices and part-time employees to do any
manual, clerical,skilled, unskilled, technical, operational or supervisory
work, is covered by the Act.

This Act though does not apply to persons mainly in managerial or

administrative capacity, persons engaged in a supervisory capacity and
drawing > 10,000 p.m or executing managerial functions and persons
subject to Army Act, Air Force and Navy Act or those in police service or
officer or employee of a prison.
lTherefore, workmen under IDA included:

Field staff, research investigators, clerical and support staff as they have
no managerial or supervisory role.

Supervisory category employees (assuming they are paid <10,000 pm).

IDA,1947 amended in 1984 has set the threshold

of the number of workmen in an industrial
dispute to be 100; earlier it was 300.
Since in this situation only 20 workmen were
involved, it cannot be categorized under
industrial disputes.
The dispute itself can be justified on the culture
prevailing in the organization.
But according to the contract regulations, it was
perfectly under the powers of the NGO to
terminate the services of certain employees
after the stipulated time of service.

Under Section 2(h) of the Trade Union Act 1926, a trade union has
rights to represent employee interests with the management

In case of RDI, 24 permanent employees were given the requisite

notice and laid off due to lack of projects in the recession

The employees had to take recourse to formation of the TU to

tackle this

Therefore, in context of employees being laid off, the Trade

Union is under its jurisdiction to raise a dispute for their
reinstatement

The works committee had the jurisdiction to discuss the dispute

According to Section 3 of the IDA:

Works committee can be setup for any industrial
establishment
Where one hundred or more workmen have been employed
Any day over the last 12 months

According to Section 2(j) of the IDAs definition of industry

NGO can be classified as an industry as well
Hence the employees can be classified as workmen
Setup of works committee is valid for RDI, as it is fulfils both
industry and workmen

to promote measures for securing and preserving amity and

good relations between the employer and workmen

To comment and discuss upon matters of their common

interest or concern

Endeavour to solve any material difference of opinion in such

matters

Work to avoid escalation of the issues into affecting the

productivity and safety of the industry

Ensure good representation of both workers as well as

managers in the committee

 As per Trade unions act 1926, a trade union of

workmen can be registered if at least 10% of
workers or 100, which ever is lower are willing to
be a part of it.
As per the said case, at the time of application
25 members were present and on the date of
registration 21 members were present, which is
more than 10% of total members and satisfies the
criteria for forming a union
In view of the above two points, the registrar of
trade union was right in registering the trade union
of the employees of RDI.

The RDI management leveled a false charge on these

leaders that they had assaulted a manager
Though activists just had some heated arguments with
manager over the termination issue which caused the
Gheraoing of the manager for 2 hours but there was no
assault on any one
RDI can take action against the people involved in
Gheraoing under the section 341 of IPC with a simple
imprisonment of a term, which may extend to one month,
or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupee, or
both
Companys action could even provoke the employee which
so far have refrained themselves entering into any
aggressive event.
Instead of going for any legal action company should ask
the people involved in the Gheraoing to apologize in the
written for the same and warn them of legal action if they
involve themselves in such activity again

Provision of Valid strike under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947Section 2(q) defines strike as a cassation of work by a body of persons
employed in any industry acting in combination, or a concerted refusal,
or a refusal under a common understanding of any number of persons
who are or have been so employed to continue to work or accept
employment.
Prohibition on the Right to Strike under Section 22(1), Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947
No person employed in public utility service shall go on strike in
breach of contract:
Without giving to employer notice of strike within six weeks before
striking
Within 14 days of giving such notice
Before expiry of the date of strike specified in any such notice as
aforesaid
During the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation
officer and 7 days after the conclusion of such proceedings.
In violation of the above, the union leaders called for the strike.
Hence the management has the right to sue the Union members for the
business loss of 50 million rupees

THANK YOU