Started by Anonymous User at 4:24 p.m. on 13 Feb. 14
There are number of books and booksellers in India. Law on Taxation may vary year to year and Taxa experts needs to study them. Meripustak.com is offering the books at very reasonable prices. Other legal and professional books for lawyers and professionals.
Started by legatarius legal at 10:12 a.m. on 14 Dec. 13
1. O 7 R 11- barred by limitation-does it mean barred by law?????
2. If cause of action is disclosed it should not be rejected.
Started by Anonymous User at 9:30 p.m. on 11 Dec. 13
Are use of rubber stamp signatures legal
Started by stefano at 6:36 p.m. on 12 April 13
i’m the President of a no profit organization based in Italy supporting street and orphan children in Andhra Pradesh.
We are a group of volunteers who started a house for 30 needy children with the help of some Indian people working with us and who are members of an indian charity organization which is running the activities in India. We support it economically and cooperate with as per the FCRA.
Actually we are paying a rent for the house so we are planning to buy a land in Hyderabad on which we would like to build a new house.
We would like to know if it is possible to assign the property of the land and of the new immovable in the name of the organization in Italy and the organization in India too.
The problem is we are not members of the Indian organization, (the president is Indian and all the members are indians ), so we are afraid we could lose the rights on the property of both the land and the new house.
So what can you suggest us? What are the ways we could manage this situation? What does the indian law says about it?
If you would be so kind to answer this topic it will be a great help for us.
Thanks a lot
Started by Anonymous User at 9:03 p.m. on 11 April 13
Started by ksbhore at 6:05 p.m. on 08 April 13
hydrabad endovement act 1349 fasli with rules
Started by Anonymous User at 3:01 a.m. on 15 Feb. 13
14 acre land aquried by indragandi in the year 1970 at Qudbullahpur to established asian company but that land is not use for asian company what is tha law if the real owner want to take his land back
Started by shinde at 9:24 p.m. on 12 Feb. 13
1. There is a recognized union A (under MRTU & PULP Act, 1971) in a Company X. The last wage settlement dated 24.03.2001 was done by the said recognized union. Its duration was from 1.01.2001 to 31.12.2003. This settlement gave unlimited rights to the management. Due to the consequent harassment experienced by the workmen, an overwhelming majority of the workmen (More than 80%) have resigned from the recognized union A and have become members of B.
2. Since then there is litigation between Union A and Union B regarding recognition. In March, 2006, Industrial Court granted Union B recognition in place of Union A. This order was set aside by Mumbai High Court in Feb, 2009 and restored recognition of Union A. Now the matter is admitted in Supreme Court and is pending.
3. There has been no settlement for wage revision after 24.03.2001. Consequently, the workmen have become financially extremely weak. During this period, the wages of the workmen of the other companies, comparable Company X, have increased manifold. The concerned workmen, on the other hand, have sunk deep in indebtedness and are subjected to such tensions and insecurity, that their death rate is alarmingly more than that of the workmen in other companies.
4. It needs to be pointed out that the recognized union A had managed to get membership subscriptions by asking the Company X to directly deduct the same from respective bonus amounts payable to workmen. The concerned workmen had resisted the said deduction and as per the order of the High Court, Mumbai, (XXX), all the workmen have got back the sums so deducted from their respective bonus amount along with the interest thereon. These workmen number 80% of the total workmen in the Company X. Thereafter none of them have ever paid any membership subscription to the recognized union A. Union B is therefore the majority Union. Union A, though recognized, is a minority union.
5. Even while the dispute of recognition was pending in the Industrial Court, as per the order of the High Court, Mumbai, Union A, being the recognized union, had the right to negotiate a new wage revision settlement and present it before the Industrial Court before signing it, but it has failed and neglected to do so. It has failed and neglected to make a new wage revision settlement even after its status as recognized union was restored by Mumbai High Court in Feb, 2009.
6. Union A has failed and neglected to respond to the precarious condition of the workmen for the past 10 years. It has never raised any dispute on behalf of the workmen before the Commissioner of Labour. The Workmen therefore do not have any faith in Union A that it will take up the cause of the workmen.
7. As there have been no periodic wage revision settlements, workmen are facing serious disruptions in their family life – socially and economically. Many workmen are facing attachment of their wages / houses, because they have not been able to pay regular loan installments, which they had taken in anticipation of new wage revisions. They and their families face the prospect of being evicted from their homes and face starvation. They have therefore become extremely restless and angry. The workmen therefore unitedly tried to find a way out of the impasse created by the question of recognition of union, the position taken by the company regarding wage revision settlement and the consequent huge loss of the worker-community.
8. They placed a charter of interim demands before the Company X, in the name of Company X Kamgar Parivar (It is not a union but a collective of 90% of the permanent workmen working in Company X), without prejudice to the legal rights of the two contending unions involved in the matter of recognition or in any other matter. Company X Kamgar Parivar elected a Workers’ Committee, sans Office Bearers of the said two contending unions, and the Commissioner of Labour to bring about discussions on the said interim charter of demands. Since the Commissioner of Labour was aware of the condition of the workmen, he agreed to mediate provided that the concerned unions first give a “No Objection” to the process started by the Workmen. In a meeting convened in the office of the Commissioner of Labour, the representatives of both the unions agreed to give the “No Objection” in the format suggested by the Commissioner of Labour.
9. Thereafter, on 18.04.2012, a meeting took place in the presence of the Labour Minister, in his chamber in Mantralaya, Mumbai, where the representatives of the management of the Company X, representatives of both the unions and the members of the Company X Kamgar Parivar Committee were present. In the said meeting the management representatives refused to consider the interim demands, but expressed their willingness to negotiate the full wage revision settlement with Company X Kamgar Parivar Committee members with the mediation of the Commissioner of Labour.
10. In view of the above, on 26.08.2012, an overwhelming majority of workmen met and by consensus, by appending their signatures, firstly terminated the settlement dated 24.03.2001; secondly, they withdrew the above-mentioned interim charter of demands put forward by the Company X Kamgar Parivar, thirdly they submitted a Charter of Demands to the Company X seeking a new settlement for wage revision and service conditions, fourthly, they elected ten workmen from amongst themselves to negotiate the said charter of demands on their behalf and informed the Company X and the Commissioner of Labour their names, and fifthly, they submitted the said Charter of Demands, along with its Justification Statement, signed by them individually to the Commissioner of Labour.
11. There are 605 signatories to the above documents out of 700 permanent workmen now remaining in Company X. They requested the Commissioner of Labour to take up the matter in conciliation and in the event of failure of the proceedings, to refer it to the Industrial tribunal.
12. In view of the fact of there being a recognized union in the establishment, with no or very little membership, on the other hand there being a majority union, with no locus standi due to not being recognized, and the precarious condition of vast majority of workmen, the Commissioner of Labour sought directions from the Law & Judiciary Department of the State Government, which has been given as follows
“The Government is empowered u/s 10(1)Of the industrial disputes act for forming its opinion whether the industrial dispute exists or apprehend and also for making reference if it form an opnion after considering the matter that it is necessary to make such reference even at the instance of 605 employees though there is no demand from the recognized union”
Stand taken by Company X from time to time :
(A) Even after Union B was granted recognition in March, 2006, Company X did not negotiate with it.
(B) Company X has not negotiated with Union A prior to March, 2006 and after Feb, 2009, even though it has the status of “Recognised Union” during those periods.
(C) After overwhelming majority of workmen, as a collective started raising interim demands or subsequently, the Charter of Demands, they have taken the following positions:
(1)regarding existence of a recognized trade union litigation pending at deferent levels, including before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India & the ongoing union rivalry between two trade unions.
In view of the pendency of the legal proceedings & existence of a recognized trade union, we are not in a position to be party to any other proceedings.
(2) As per Section 20 of the M.R.T.U.&P.U.L.P Act 1972 an employer, like us, is prohibited from negotiating & arriving at an agreement related to terms & conditions of employment of workmen except with the recognized trade union for the time being.
If both unions confirm in writing that none of them claims status as a recognized union for representing workmen at Akurdi factory & all pending litigations get disposed off by the respective courts, then only it could be possible to negotiate with any third union/pariwar (pariwar means substantial number workmen not a any union) as per the provisions of the trade unions act any group of workmen such as the pariwar is a trade union of the workmen.
23 June 2012
(3) Presently as per the decision of the hon’ble court there is a ”recognized trade union” & in view of applicable legal provisions, no discussion with any other group or union, in respect of any wage settlement are permitted.
17 July 2012
(4)The issue about de-recognition & recognition between two unions is part of the litigation pending before hon’ble Supreme Court of India. in the meanwhile Union A continues to be the recognized trade union
(5) as per the information group of workmen is not a union within the meaning of section 3(17) of M.R.T.U.&P.U.L.P Act 1971
(6) as per the provisions of M.R.T.U.&P.U.L.P Act 1971 particularly section 26 read with Schedule (2) of the Act, we as the employer of the workmen employed at the factory are prohibited from negotiating & entering into any settlement or taking further steps relating employment of the workmen employed in the factory except with the recognized trade union.
In view of the above, if the Charter of Demands is referred to an Industrial Tribunal, how to overcome the following provisions of law regarding representation:
1) M.R.T.U.&P.U.L.P Act 1971 section 20(2)b is as under : no employee shall be allowed to appear or act or be allowed to be represented in any proceedings under the Central Act (not being a proceeding in which the legality or propriety of an order of dismissal, discharge, removal, retrenchment, termination of service, or suspension of an employee is under consideration), except through the recognised union; and the decision arrived at, or order made, in such proceeding shall be binding on all the employees in such undertaking; and accordingly, the provisions of the Central Act, that is to say, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, XIV of 1947, shall stand amended in the manner and to the extent specified in Schedule I.
(2) Section 36(1) of the I.D. Act, however stood amended by the Maharashtra amendment by which a
'proviso' was added to it. Section 36(1) as it stands after the Maharashtra amendment reads as under: "36.
REPRESENTATION OF PARTIES. - (1) A workman who is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be
represented in any proceeding under this Act by -
(a) any member of the executive or other office bearer of a registered trade union of which he is a member;
(b) any member of the executive or other office bearer of a federation of trade unions to which the trade union
referred to in clause (a) is affiliated;(c) where the worker is not a member of any trade union, by any member of the executive or other office bearer of any trade union connected with, or by any other workman employed in, the industry in which the worker is employed and authorized in such manner as may be prescribed.
Provided that, where there is a recognized union for any undertaking under any law for the time being in
force, no workman in such undertaking shall be entitled to be represented as aforesaid in any such proceeding
(not being a proceeding in which the legality or propriety of an order of dismissal, discharge, removal,
retrenchment, termination of service, or suspension of an employee is under consideration) except by such
(3) Recently in Ref.(IT)No.35/2008, an Award dated 2/8/2011 is given by the Industrial Tribunal, Pune in a similar matter, which is attached.
Is there any bar to “workmen representing themselves”? How should this be done – by filing a Statement of Claim signed by all the signatories of the Charter of Demands or filing affidavits of individual workmen? Affidavits give the Company X to cross examine each affiant, thus prolonging the matter. What case law is available to support workmen’s case?
This needs to be taken to a speedy conclusion in favour of the workmen, as their pecuniary condition is bad, to put it mildly.
Started by Anonymous User at 1:06 p.m. on 18 Jan. 13
We were the residence of a slum at panjrapol(chembur) which then had turn into a project for more improvement residential houses was allotted to us, but we had our Buddha temple which we had registered it legally in 80s, MMRDA officials promised us to allot this temple to us at our residence, but one of the officer (Mr Choudhary)from MMRDA BKC took some bribe from a lady and gave her a letter of allotment in our absence, we have been running back and forth for past 3years now for this temple, we would be happy to provide you all the legal documents for the same,we would request such officials needs to expelled from the government just in case people may get cruel for such activity to avoid such we would here are requesting by humbly to look into it. bldg 7 kukreja compound new mahada colony near Rahul nagar, vasi naka chembur Mumbai 74
Started by ajaydhand at 11 a.m. on 27 Nov. 12