This document summarizes key aspects of the Industrial Dispute Act of 1947 and the Factories Act of 1948 in India. It discusses the objectives and features of the Industrial Dispute Act, including providing measures for good employer-employee relations and preventing illegal strikes. It also summarizes a Supreme Court case related to termination of employment. The document then summarizes provisions of the Factories Act related to worker health, safety, welfare and conditions. Finally, it outlines a case related to import duties on steel plates.

1. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT, 1947
&
FACTORIES ACT 1948
PRESENTED BY-
SHIVANI SHARMA
SHAMLI SHARMA
SHUBHAM RAJ DEVOLIA
SOURABH YADWAD
SHUBHAM SUREKA

2. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT, 1947
The Industrial Disputes Act has come into force in the year,
1947. The Act was enacted to make provisions for the
prevention and settlement of industrial disputes and for
providing certain safeguards to the workers. The act aims
to minimize the conflicts between labour and
management by ensuring possible economic and social
justice. The regulations made under this act applies to the
entire constitution of India.

3. OBJECTIVES
 To support measures for securing and preserving good
relations between employers and employees.
 To provide suitable machinery for the equitable and
peaceful settlement of industrial disputes.
 To prevent illegal strikes and lockouts.
 To afford relief to workers against layoffs,
retrenchment, wrongful dismissal and victimisation.
 To promote collective bargaining.
 To improve the conditions of workers.
 To avoid unfair labour practices.

4. FEATURES
 The act applies to entire India also includes the state of
Jammu and Kashmir.
 It favours arbitration over the disputes between
employers and workers.
 It affords for setting up of works committees as
machinery for mutual discussion between employers
and workers to promote friendly relation.
 The act paved the way for creating permanent
conciliation machinery at various stages having definite
time limits for conciliation and arbitration.

5. FEATURES (CONT.)
 This act emphasis on compulsory adjudication apart
from the conciliation and voluntary arbitration of
Industrial Disputes.
 The Act empowers the Government to refer the dispute
to an appropriate authority, i.e., Labour Court,
Industrial tribunal and National tribunal depending
upon the nature of the dispute either on its own or on
the request of the parties.

6. DEVKINANDAN K. MISHRA
VS
SAYAJI IRON & ENGINEERING
PVT. LTD.
DECIDED ON – 9TH AUG 2007
APPELLENT:
RESPONDENT:

7. THE INCIDENT
 The appellant, appointed as an mechanist charge hand,
was to supervise the work over machines.
 During an inspection on 28th march 1985, between 2:30
am – 4:30 am, he was found sleeping, along with the
worker he was to supervise.
 He was suspended immediately. A charge sheet was
issued and an inquiry was made resulting in his
termination.

8. LABOUR COURT, VADODRA
 Petitioner said he could not be terminated as he was
working as a supervisor but was a workman and thus
can not be terminated.
 The respondents submitted that termination was just
and proper for the “misconduct”, of sleeping on duty,
committed by the appellant..

9. GUJRAT HIGH COURT
 Petitioner puts forward the point that he draws a salary
of less than Rs.1600/- and as such is a workman as per
section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
 Respondents site that the definition states that a
person primarily in a managerial position is not to be a
workman.

10. GRAVITY OF MISCONDUCT
 Labour court approved of the fact that termination was
just for the act of misconduct committed by the
appellant.
 The appellant sited the judgment made by the hon’ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Colour-Chem Ltd. vs
A.L.Alaspurkar, which is identical to the present case, in
light of which the petitioner can not be removed from
service for a single lapse.

11. JUDGEMENT
 The learned Labour Court was not justified in holding that the
petitioner was not a workman, but, was a supervisor.
 In the case referred to the hon’ble Supreme Court found that
where the misconduct is not of a grave nature, reinstatement
and continuity of service should be awarded as a rule, but,
the payment of back-wages would be in the discretion of the
Court.
 The petitioner be reinstated and be awarded continuity of
service and be paid 30% back wages.

12. TATA MOTORS
VS
SINGUR
DECIDED ON – 9TH AUG 2007

14. THE FACTORIES ACT, 1948
The Factories Act, 1948 (the Factories Act) lays down
provisions for the health, safety, welfare and service
conditions of workmen working in factories. It contains
provisions for working hours of adults, employment of
young persons, leaves, overtime, etc. It applies to all
factories employing more than 10 people and working
with the aid of power, or employing 20 people and
working without the aid of power.

15. THE FACTORIES ACT (CONT.)
It covers all workers employed in the factory premises or
precincts directly or through an agency including a
contractor, involved in any manufacture. Some provisions
of the Act may vary according to the nature of work of the
establishment.

16. PROVISION OF FACTORIES ACT
 Section 11
 Section 13
 Section 18
 Section 19
 Section 21
 Section 45

17. M/S. MSCO PVT. LTD.
Vs.
UNIONS IF INDIA & OTHERS
DECIDED ON – 31TH OCT’ 1984
APPELLENT:
RESPONDENT:

18. THE INCIDENT
The appellant imported some steel plates at a concessional
rate of import duty under a notification that provided :
i. That the importer should import the goods for the
manufacture of all or any of the articles specified in that
notification
ii. That the articles so manufactured had to be sold to
industrial units for their use
iii. In case of any violation of any one of the conditions, the
importer was liable to pay the differernce between duty
livable and exemption contained at the time of
importation.