Q:I am an employee of a government construction company. I, along with several other colleagues, had gone on a flash strike on account of disputes with the management. Subsequently, I have been given a show cause notice threatening to terminate my service on grounds of unauthorised absence from duty. I am contesting these allegations departmentally. If any adverse order is passed against me, is it necessary for me to go to the Labour Court or can I directly go to the High Court by way of a civil suit or a writ petition?
Name withheld
A:The dispute between you and your employer is ?an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?. As such, the proper remedy available to you would be to seek adjudication through the mechanism set up under the said Act and approach the appropriate labour court and/or industrial tribunal, as the case may be. Since your employer is a governmental organisation, the courts would be reluctant to entertain a writ petition since a specific alternative remedy is available under the said Act.
However, you still have the option of suing your employer under the provisions of the general law before the competent Civil Court. But since the matter would essentially relate to the recognition, observance and/or enforcement of rights and obligations created by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it would be advisable to take advantage of the mechanism set up under the Act.
This becomes all the more pertinent in your case since the labour courts/industrial tribunals are given wide powers to grant relief and award appropriate compensation. In relevant cases, the tribunal/labour court can even modify the contractual terms of employment to make it fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. They are also vested with the power to directly reinstate any worker who has been treated unfairly by employers. This provision normally wouldn?t be available to workers in an ordinary civil action. Further, this could turn out to be a quicker and a more cost-effective option.
Q:A cash certificate was purchased from a bank in the name of my father and me and the mode of operation for the account was either or survivor. The bank handed over the maturity amount to me on the due date. However, my father died before the maturity of the certificate. I have two other elder brothers and four sisters. Each one of them is claiming 1/7th of the maturity amount. Are their claims legal? Please advise me.
A: The phrase ?either or survivor? is a rule relating to the operation of the bank account and is not intended to decide the title of the corpus. The ?survivor? is entitled to encash the certificate and in the event of a dispute regarding the title of the corpus, he is in a similar position as a ?nominee? and is deemed to hold the money in ?trust? till the rights are decided. Nomination doesn?t defeat the rights of the other heirs. It does not automatically create a title nor does it confer any permanent rights over the disputed amount. Assuming that your father died without leaving a Will, his wife (if alive) and all his children would be entitled to ?his properties in equal shares? according to the law of succession. Thus, if the other heirs can prove that the corpus, from which the cash certificate was purchased from the bank, belonged to your father, they would definitely be entitled to claim a proportionate share of that money. Of course, if you can show that the principal amount/corpus was your own money then your brothers and sisters cannot have any claim on that.
Send your letters to Inlaw at The Telegraph,
Jobs Desk, 6 Prafulla Sarkar Street,
Calcutta 700001;
or fax at 225 3142;
or send e-mails to jobs@abpmail.com.
