Reader Comments

The Lawyer in Chandigarh Diaries

by Numbers Fetherstonhaugh (2018-10-22)


on the material referred to by it in its order, came to the conclusion (1) that the applicant did not fall within the category of workcharged staff, (2) that under the Award of the Railway Workers' Classification Tribunal, no trade test was necessary for the applicant who was a carpenter, and (3) that as per certain instructions of the concerned authority, the period of casual labour was to be limited to six months, and that since this applicant was admittedly a casual labourer under the Railway for a much larger period, i.

That his claim was understood as having been based on the Award of Railway Workers' Classification Tribunal, by the Railway Authorities themselves, is clear from the statement filed on their behalf in answer to the J. The Act under which the Appellate Tribunal purported to pass its order has now been repealed by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956. Apart from the question of jurisdiction, the defence was two-fold. It is the very point that Fazl Ali J.

It has been necessary for us to go into the facts and circumstances of this case in greater detail than is usual with this Court, because the Labour Appellate Tribunal did not do so. The nearest approximation to generalization which the present state of the authorities would warrant is this: When the conception of corporate entity is employed to defraud creditors, to evade an existing obligation, to circumvent a statute, to achieve or perpetuate monopoly, or to protect knavery or crime, the courts will draw aside the web of entity, will regard the corporate company as an association of live, up-and-doing, men and women shareholders, and will do justice between real persons.

The only question is whether or not the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to find that the applicant was entitled to the emoluments of a monthly-rated temporary employee and not to that of a daily-rated casual labourer, as the result of the order of the Railway Board directing implementation of the Award of the Classification Tribunal. His claim was treated and upheld by the Tribunal as one substantially based on the ground that the Award of the Railway Workers' Classification Tribunal in relation to the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission was approved by the Railway Board and directed to be implemented, and that by virtue thereof he was no longer a mere casual labourer but was entitled to higher wages on the footing of a monthly-rated labourer.

We do not, however, think it necessary to pass an order of remand in this case and therefore abstain from expressing any opinion as to the correct position in law under subsection (2) of section 33 of that Act. -These appeals arise out of orders of assessment made on the appellant by Advocates the Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, for the years of account 1941-42, 1942-43 and 1943-44. A question of some nicety as to the correct interpretation of section 33 of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956 might have arisen if we had thought fit to remand this case.

made Advocates in Anwar Ali Sarkar's case(1) at pages 309-310: In Palmer's Company Law, this topic is discussed in Part-II of Vol-I. (2) Even if it applied to a person in the situation of the applicant, he was not entitled to be brought on to the monthly-rates of pay in the skilled grade, without his previously passing a trade test to establish himself as skilled in his trade and he did not pass the test. Whether these conclusions are right or wrong is not the question before us. The matter now comes before us by way of special appeal.

I endeavoured to point out in my judgment in Anwar Ali Sarkar's case(1) at page 361 that one can conceive of classifications that conform to all Advocates these rules and yet which are bad: classifications made in the utmost good faith;/classifications that are scientific and rational, that 'Will have direct and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved and yet which are bad because despite all that the object itself cannot be allowed on the ground that Advocates it offends article 14.

The appellant company have made out a prima facie case for the permission which they have asked for and there is no suggestion even of any unfair practice or victimisation. What general rule, if any, can be laid down ? The appellant applied under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to refer to the High Court certain questions which according to it arose out of the orders; but the Tribunal rejected the applications.

The appellant then moved the High Court under section 66(2) of the Act for an order requiring the Tribunal to refer those questions to the court, but the learned Judges held that the questions on which reference was sought by the appellant were pure questions of fact, and dismissed the applications. The various classes of cases where the concept of corporate entity should be ignored and and veil drawn aside have now been briefly reviewed. As held by the High Court, pleadings in these cases have to be liberally construed.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AYYAR J. since 1941, he became entitled to be treated as a temporary employee and not as a casual labourer and to receive wages as such. His claim to be treated as a permanent employee was apparently not accepted by the Tribu- nal (the Authority under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act for Bombay). struck down and not the mere classification which,, after all, is only a means of attaining the end desired; and that, in my judgment, is precisely the point here.

He claimed that he should Advocates have been absorbed as a monthly-rated permanent employee and that he has been wrongly superseded. We are satisfied Prima facie that the respondents were temporary employees and were put on the spare list as and when the erection works were gradually completed. No question arises that the order of the Tribunal is bad owing to the 1365 variation between the claim made and the relief granted. No new facts need investigation in this case. (1) The applicant being a daily-rated casual labourer, charged to works, the directive of the Railway Board did not apply to him.

But it was held that the position of the applicant is not that of a daily-rated casual labourer but that of a monthly-rated temporary employee. The second respondent before us, employed as a carpenter in the Railway since 1941, has been working as a daily-rated casual labourer. Learned counsel for the parties have taken us through all the affidavits filed and the facts necessary for an enquiry under section 22 of the Act clearly emerge from those affidavits.

In such a case, the object itself must be.