Labour law can't be rendered illusory, says HC, directs Aavin to pay costs of 20K
Chennai: Coming to the aid of 1,100 workmen of Aavin, who were contesting multiple legal battles against their termination for over 45 years,
has asserted that Aavin cannot be allowed to render the protective framework of labour legislation illusory.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Justice A D Maria Clete dismissed the appeals moved by Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Limited against the orders passed by the labour court to reinstate the workmen and imposed 20,000 as costs in each of the appeals to be paid to the workers.
"In the end, regardless of the political regime in power, no real solace was extended to the working class. They remained victims of a system where a powerful employer could dismiss them without due process," the judge said.
All the 1,100 workers were terminated from service for participating in a one-day strike on Nov 19, 1980, without conducting any inquiry.
The workers, through the employees' union, raised an industrial dispute before the state labour department. After two years, the govt refused to refer the dispute for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act. Aggrieved, the union moved the high court, which ruled in favour of the workmen in 1983.
Claiming to be aggrieved by the order, both Aavin and the labour department moved appeals, which were dismissed by the high court.
After five years, the govt issued two orders of reference. After a 'protracted trial' spanning 13 years, the industrial tribunal on Feb 17, 1997, held that the workmen, having been dismissed without the conduct of any inquiry, were entitled to reinstatement. However, the tribunal limited the award of back wages to 25%.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Aavin moved an appeal challenging the award, which was also dismissed by the high court in 2015. In the meantime, the workmen moved the labour court for computation of their back wages. Now, challenging the order passed by the labour court, Aavin has moved the high court. Dismissing the five petitions of Aavin, the court said, "This court now draws the curtain on a protracted legal battle that has spanned an extraordinary 45 years—a duration far too long for any ordinary workman to endure while seeking justice against a powerful employer.
"
The court then directed Aavin to pay costs of 20,000 in each of the writ petitions to the respective contesting workmen.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Corpn can't tax railway property: HC
Madurai: Article 285(1) of the Constitution indicates that the property of the Union shall be exempt from all taxes imposed by a state, even if it is put to commercial use, observed Madras high court . The court set aside a single bench order dismissing a plea moved by Madurai Multi Functional Complex Private Limited challenging the demand notice issued by Madurai corporation seeking payment of property tax. The land in Madurai belongs to railways. To develop vacant land parcels owned by railways, The Railways Act, 1989, was amended and Railway Land Development Authority (RLDA) was constituted. In 2013, RLDA and Ircon Infrastructure and Services Limited entered into an agreement for development of railway land throughout India. Subsequently, Ircon entered into a sub-lease agreement for 30 years with Madurai Multi Functional Complex Private Limited concerning the property in Madurai. The Multi Functional Complex was constructed by Ircon on a 2,700 sq metre plot within Madurai railway station premises. Madurai corporation assessed the building for property tax and issued a demand notice in 2018, calling upon Madurai Multi Functional Complex Private Limited to pay half-yearly tax of Rs 10,07,623. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 오스템 임플란트 받아가세요 임플란터 더 알아보기 Undo Though a petition was filed challenging the demand notice, it was dismissed by the single judge. Therefore, Madurai Multi Functional Complex Private Limited (appellant) preferred the present appeal in 2020. A division bench of Justice G R Swaminathan and Justice M Jothiraman observed that the plain language of Article 285(1) of the Constitution indicates that the property of the Union shall be exempt from all taxes imposed by a state or by any authority within a state. "Article 285(1) stands as an iron dome which cannot be breached. Property of the Union of all kinds and hues can take shelter within it," the judges observed. The judges noted that RLDA is an alter-ego of the railways which cannot hold properties in its name. "Therefore, we hold that the petition mentioned building belongs to railways. The title over the building vests with the railways," they said. Hence, the judges held that the levy of property tax over the appellant-building would fall foul of Article 285(1) of the Constitution and set aside the order of the single bench. However, the judges made it clear that since the appellant is enjoying certain facilities offered by the Madurai corporation, it is open to the corporation to enter into a special agreement with the appellant to enable the petitioner to continue to enjoy those facilities. Since the appellant-building forms a class by itself, it is open to the corporation to charge a higher drainage tax. The corporation will issue notice to the appellant and other occupiers of the building to come for negotiation and enter into an appropriate agreement in this regard, the judges observed.
Time of India
6 hours ago
- Time of India
Homebuyers in Bengaluru feel betrayed as builders flout Rera orders with impunity
Bengaluru: For thousands of homebuyers across the city, the dream of owning a home has turned into a never-ending legal and financial nightmare. Despite securing favourable rulings from the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Rera), many buyers allege that builders are openly flouting the law with no consequences, while govt agencies look the other way. From construction delays and refund refusals to outright defiance of Rera compensation orders, aggrieved buyers say enforcement is virtually non-existent. What began as a hopeful investment has, for many, turned into a fight for justice that drags on for years. Gopal Agarwal, a 47-year-old chartered accountant based in Whitefield, invested in a project back in 2012 with the promise of possession by 2015. He finally received the flat only in 2019. The builder initially agreed to pay Rs 10 lakh in compensation but later backed out. Agarwal approached Rera, which passed a favourable order in Oct 2022. "I'm still running around for execution (of the order). I've visited the deputy commissioner and tahsildar offices more than a hundred times. Even the high court directed the DC to recover the money within eight weeks — nothing happened. The builder managed to get a stay and I'm back to square one. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Brass Laxmi Ji Idol For Wealth, Peace & Happiness Luxeartisanship Shop Now Undo Rera is doing its job, but it's toothless without enforcement powers. Revenue officers don't act," he said. Govind Narayan, a 36-year-old resident of Jalahalli, booked a flat near Electronics City in 2018. Possession was initially promised by Aug 2022, later revised to March 2024. However, construction stopped in 2022 and hasn't resumed since. "Every time we contact the builder, we're told 'work will start tomorrow'. It's the same excuse every time. I've invested Rs 37 lakh — my entire savings — and have no home, no returns. The flat's market value is now more than Rs 80 lakh. Even after winning a Rera case and receiving a revenue recovery certificate, there's no enforcement," Narayan said. Businessman Sudhakar Lakshmanaraja said that despite a 2021 Rera order to recover Rs 46 lakh from a well-known builder, there has been zero progress. "I've approached everyone — the PMO, CM, housing department, human rights commission — but to no avail. Officers pass the buck. Meanwhile, these fraudulent builders are still operating. What message are we sending to honest citizens?" he asked. According to data from Rera, 796 enforcement orders have been issued since the Act came into effect. Homebuyers' associations estimate that while roughly 50% of these involve builder refunds, nearly 30% of those refunds are stuck because of non-compliance. Dhananjaya Padmanabhachar, convener of Karnataka Homebuyers Forum, said: "Rera needs its own revenue collection officer with powers to attach properties of defaulters. Paper orders without enforcement mean nothing to homebuyers." A senior Rera official admitted the authority's limitations: "We don't have the power to recover money. That lies with the govt. We can pass orders, but without execution powers, enforcement suffers."
Time of India
10 hours ago
- Time of India
HC junks Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority order to cancel land for project
Noida: The Allahabad high court has quashed a 2022 decision by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) to cancel land allotted to Royal Golf Link City Projects Pvt Ltd, calling the move "arbitrary and illegal". The court struck down restoration charges, time extension penalties, and penal interest imposed by GNIDA, asking the Authority to restore the plot and revalidate the project map. The court was hearing a petition filed by Royal Golf Link in April, challenging a UP govt order that restored the land allotment but levied several charges. On May 27, Justice Pankaj Bhatia of the Lucknow bench of the HC struck down the state govt's order, nullified the penalties, and granted a three-year extension to the developer to complete the project without extra cost. The court said GNIDA had no valid reason to deny relief to Royal Golf Link when similar reprieve was given to other developers. "Thus, for all the reasons above, the impugned order insofar as it denies the benefit of restoration charges, the extension of time without payment of charges, non-charge of penalty interest and zero period benefit is wholly unjustified and the order to that effect is bad in law. Thus, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent no 3 (GNIDA) to recalculate the dues as indicated in the cancellation order dated July 20, 2022 without charging the restoration charges, grant the benefit of time extension without any charges and calculate the interest without charging any penal interest at the rate of SBI's MCLR + 1," the court order read. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo The case revolves around a 36.4-hectare land parcel allotted in 2014-15 for developing a recreational park in Sector 27. Initially allocated to a consortium led by Ultra Homes Construction (part of the Amrapali Group), the project was later transferred to Royal Golf Link City Projects, a special purpose vehicle. The total land premium was Rs 298 crore, of which Rs 59.6 crore was paid when the lease was signed. The dispute emerged when GNIDA failed to provide full physical possession of land, with 13,517sqm under encroachment, including a pond and connecting pathway. The situation was further complicated when the then DM asked the developer to leave this area for public access, necessitating a project redesign. The Authority also recorded the presence of farmers on a part of the land and deferred the next premium instalment by six months. The Amrapali case in the Supreme Court further complicated the progress, as the company declared an investment in Royal Golf Link in 2018. The SC ruled that leaseholder dues should be calculated at SBI's MCLR + 1. Royal Golf Link sought recalculation of dues and an 18-month zero-period benefit from the start govt, saying it hadn't received full possession. Instead, GNIDA cancelled the lease on July 20, 2022, citing unsettled dues of Rs 360 crore. The developer moved HC, claiming that GNIDA ignored the SC ruling on interest. Homebuyers also intervened, arguing that the additional charges would be passed on to them. They also claimed that most of the project was ready, but was stuck due to GNIDA's disputes. Royal Golf Link insisted that the restoration fees were unjust since the cancellation was ruled illegal. The court accepted the developer's request for zero-period relief, waiving penalty interest and dues for the Covid pandemic period and from July 20, 2022, to June 12, 2024. The court ruled that the developer must pay 25% of the revised amount — after adjusting Rs 5 crore already paid — within 60 days of receiving the demand. The project Royal Golf Link is building is known as 'The Hemisphere', which includes 1,300 flats, villas, and shops. The developer has claimed to have offered fit-out possession to around 900 buyers.
