Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

The employee, Shree Lal Meena, sent a resignation letter on 14 July 1990, which was accepted on 11 January 1991. After the Life Insurance Corporation (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 were introduced with retrospective effect from 1 November 1993, he claimed pension on the ground that Rule 3 made the Rules applicable to …

Charan Singh, a tube‑well operator in the Uttar Pradesh Fisheries Department, was terminated in August 1975 on the ground that he was a temporary employee and was given one month's wages in lieu of notice. He contended that he was a permanent workman and that the termination violated the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disput…

The appellants, Ram Gopal Dwivedi and others, were engaged as apprentices under the Apprentices Act, 1961 by Kanpur Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. (a unit of the U.P. State Electricity Board) and their services were terminated after completing a three‑year training period. The Labour Court held the termination illegal, or…

Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi was employed by Hindalco Industries Ltd as a labour supervisor from 30‑12‑1992 to 27‑07‑1998. Although the employer periodically terminated his service on the pretext of "sanction expired" and re‑appointed him on short contracts, the workman rendered continuous service of nearly six years. The La…

Three union officials, declared as protected workmen, were dismissed after the employer alleged they had filed a false police complaint against senior officers. The criminal court had acquitted the officers, and the employer issued a charge‑sheet without conducting a departmental inquiry, relying on the magistrate's ju…

India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd., the management of a manufacturing unit, challenged the competence of 113 workmen to be represented before the Industrial Tribunal by five elected workmen. The dispute centered on whether Section 6‑1 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 40 of the Uttar Pradesh Industr…

The Supreme Court examined whether Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) was subject to the 24‑April‑1990 notification issued under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and whether the workmen who were engaged through contractors were direct employees of BHEL. The Court held that BHEL’s Haridwar ope…

Sudarshan Rajpoot, a driver employed permanently by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, suffered grievous injuries in a vehicle accident caused by a mechanical defect. The corporation struck his name off the contract roll, alleging negligent driving, and terminated his services without complying with st…

Shree Lal Meena resigned from LIC in 1990 because no voluntary retirement scheme existed, and later sought pension benefits under the LIC Employees' Pension Rules, 1995 which were retrospectively applied from 1993. The Supreme Court examined whether a resignation could be treated as voluntary retirement and whether the…

The workman Dilip Mani Dubey was terminated by his employer M/S SIEL Ltd. An Industrial Tribunal under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 awarded reinstatement and back wages, holding that he had been in continuous service for one year as required by Section 6‑N. The employer challenged the award in a writ…

Raj Kumar worked as a daily‑wage beldar in the Uttarakhand PWD for about a year (June 1986‑May 1987) and was terminated without following the procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act. After a lapse of roughly 25 years he approached the Labour Court seeking reinstatement; the Labour Court awarded Rs 30,000…

Krishna Kant Pandey, employed by Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd., was terminated after serving in various supervisory roles, most recently as Fleet Executive. He claimed that he was a "workman" under Section 2(z) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that his termination violated Section 6 of the Act.…

The appellant, a workman, was dismissed for misconduct and the employer sought approval of the dismissal under Section 6E(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which requires that the workman be paid wages for one month before dismissal. The appellant claimed that his monthly wages of Rs.1,214.40 were …