HC restrains refinery workers from going ahead with strike plan
The association had issued a notice proposing a 24-hour strike from 7am on Wednesday to 7am on Thursday, which led BPCL to approach HC challenging the legality of the notice. During hearing, BPCL submitted that regional labour commissioner (central) has initiated conciliation proceedings, with the first session held on July 3 and the next scheduled for July 17. Despite the ongoing proceedings, the association maintained its decision to proceed with the strike.
On examining the submissions, HC observed that under Section 22(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, employees in a public utility service are prohibited from striking during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer, and for seven days after their conclusion. The court also noted that the central govt has declared the services rendered by BPCL Kochi Refinery as a public utility service.
In light of these facts, HC held that the proposed strike was in violation of statutory provisions and issued an interim order restraining the association from proceeding with it for the next two weeks.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
11 hours ago
- Indian Express
Why Delhi HC dismissed Turkish firm Celebi's challenge to security clearance revocation
The Delhi High Court on Monday (July 7) dismissed Turkey-based firm Celebi's challenge to the revocation of security clearance of its Indian subsidiary, which provided airport ground handling in the country, by the Centre. The company had approached the HC after the Bureau of Civil Aviation Safety (BCAS) revoked Celebi Airport Services India's security clearance on May 15, amid growing tensions between India and Turkey over the latter's stance on Pakistan following Operation Sindoor. The Indian government said that the revocation was 'in the interest of national security'. What was the case? Celebi moved the HC arguing that it was not provided an opportunity for hearing by the Centre before the revocation of the company's security clearance. It cited the Aircraft (Security) Rules, 2023, stating that the rules made it mandatory for the government to provide the company with an opportunity for a hearing. The Centre, however, told the court that given the decision was in the interest of national security, authorities did not need to be in full compliance with the principles of natural justice. What did the court say? The HC's Justice Sachin Datta, who heard the case, dismissed Celebi's challenge, saying that there were 'compelling national security considerations involved', which 'impelled' the Centre to revoke the clearance, with 'impelling geo-political considerations' at play. While Justice Datta acknowledged that Celebi was not given the opportunity for hearing before the revocation of its security clearance, he relied on domestic and foreign jurisprudence to conclude that 'the principles of natural justice must yield to preservation of natural security'. What does the ruling mean for Celebi in India? The Delhi HC's decision has a direct bearing on legal challenges Celebi has instituted before various HCs in the country, including Madras, Bombay, and Gujarat HCs. The company in these HCs has challenged the cancellation of its contracts by various airports. The cancellations were made following the Centre's decision to revoke the company's security clearance. In India, Celebi was providing ground handling services at Delhi's Indira Gandhi International Airport, Kerala's Cochin International Airport, Bengaluru's Kempegowda International Airport, Hyderabad's Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Goa's Manohar International Airport, and Ahmedabad airport.
The Print
11 hours ago
- The Print
Even as Centre dithers on notifying labour codes, most states amend labour laws to attract investments
Meanwhile, documents made available by the Union Labour Ministry, show that many states and UTs have gone ahead and amended several of their archaic laws to align them with the labour codes. For instance, so far 32 states and UTs including Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Andhra Pradesh, among others, have amended the Factories Act,1948, to enable women to work night shifts. The Parliament had passed the codes that consolidated the 29 central labour laws between 2019 and 2020. These included the Code on Wages; Code on Industrial Relations; Code on Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions; and Code on Social Security. However, 5 years down the line, the Centre is yet to notify the rules, without which the codes cannot become operational. New Delhi: From allowing women to work night shifts to empowering companies with up to 300 employees to hire and fire without government approval, states across India, including non-BJP ones, have amended their labour laws to attract investment and boost economic activity, even as the Centre continues to dither on notifying four labour codes. Even the non-NDA ruled states, including Punjab, Jharkhand, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Mizoram, Kerala, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, and Karnataka have eased their law to allow women to work night shifts. In the remaining states and UT, the amendment is under consideration, labour ministry sources said. In the labour codes passed by the Centre, the Factories Act was subsumed in the Code on Occupational Safety, Health and Working Condition. Twelve states have amended the Factories Act to extend work shifts to 12 hours per day. These states have also increased the quarterly overtime hours limit from 75 hours to up to 125 hours. Opposition ruled states, such as Karnataka, Himachal and Punjab, overtime hours have been extended to 144 hours. In several other states and UTs, including Jammu and Kashmir, Telangana, Jharkhand and Meghalaya, the amendments are under consideration, labour ministry documents show. Also read: Naidu govt approves 10-hr workdays, night shifts for women in bid to attract more industry, investment 19 states amended law allowing companies to hire and fire Some 19 states and UTs have also amended the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, allowing companies employing up to 300 workers to hire and fire without needing government approval. Earlier, it was compulsory for firms employing up to 100 workers to frame standing orders for its workforce. Standing orders are the rules of conduct for workmen employed in industrial establishments. The Industrial Disputes Act was subsumed in the Code on Industrial Relations. Nineteen states and Union Territories have amended the Factories Act to raise the worker threshold that defines a factory for the law's applicability. While for factories using power, a majority of the states and UTs have increased the threshold from 10 to 20 or more workers, for factories not using power, the threshold has been increased from 20 to 40 or more workers. Another significant amendment that states and UTs have made in their respective laws relate to fixed term employment. Some 25 states and UTs have now allowed fixed term employment, providing employers the flexibility to hire workers for a specified period, as per requirement. Besides, 21 states and four UTs have amended their state specific laws allowing for compounding (settling) of offences, which were not punishable with imprisonment or imprisonment and fine. The four labour codes allow compounding for a sum of 50 percent of the maximum fine provided for the offence. Besides, 17 states and two UTs have also amended the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, to make it applicable to establishments and contractors employing 50 or more workers from the earlier 20 workers. Sources in the ministry said that states have gone ahead and amended their archaic labour laws on their own to become more competitive and investor friendly. 'States have realised that if they do not reform their labour laws, they will lose out on business. Companies will go and set up their business in states where the compliance norms are not cumbersome and there is ease of doing business,' one of the sources said. The source, however, did not give a clear timeframe about when the Centre will notify the codes. There has been a lot of push back from trade unions to roll back several provisions in the labour codes. Government sources said that this is one of the key reasons behind the Centre's tardiness in not notifying the codes. The ministry, on its part, has been blaming the states for not finalising the draft rules. Since labour is part of the concurrent list and both states and the Centre have to notify the rules under their respective jurisdiction. Without the notification of rules, the codes cannot become operational. A government source said, this lessens the criticism on the Centre for delay in notifying the labour codes. (Edited by Zinnia Ray Chaudhuri) Also read: Labour Secretary chairs 16th meeting of Building and Other Construction Workers monitoring committee
Business Standard
16 hours ago
- Business Standard
Supreme Inds bags supply order worth Rs 54-cr from BPCL
Supreme Industries said that it has received letter of acceptance (LoA) worth Rs 54 crore from Bharat Petroleum Corporation (BPCL) to supply composite LPG cylinders. The contract includes the supply of 2,00,000 of 10 kg composite LPG cylinders. The total supply is expected to be valued at around Rs 54 crore approximately. The contract shall be valid for a period of 6 months from the date of placement of the LoA. However, the same may be extended and/or repeated at the sole discretion of BPCL for a further period of up to 6 months. Supreme Industries is engaged mainly in the production of plastic products and operates in various product categories like plastic piping systems, cross-laminated films & products, protective packaging products, industrial molded components, molded furniture, storage & material handling products, performance packaging films, and composite LPG cylinders. The companys consolidated net profit tumbled 17.16% YoY to Rs 293.94 crore in Q4 FY25. The companys revenue from operations rose 0.64% year-on-year (YoY) to Rs 3,027.07 crore in Q4 FY25. The counter declined 1.78% to settle at Rs 4,197 on the BSE.
