Tag: Labour Rights

Supreme Court Rules Insurance Company Liable for Worker Compensation Alongside Employer
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules Insurance Company Liable for Worker Compensation Alongside Employer

The Supreme Court held that under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, an insurer can be made a party and held jointly and severally liable for compensation if the employer's liability is covered by the insurance policy. The Court clarified that Section 19 of the Act empowers the Commissioner to determine the liability of the insurer, ensuring the workman's remedy is effective and not illusory. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a claim filed by a workman (the second respondent), who was employed as a driver by the appellant, Alok Kumar Ghosh. The workman suffered a disabling injury due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. He filed for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, against both his employer (the appellant) and The New In...
Supreme Court Orders End to ‘Forced Labour’ in Matheran, Directs Rehabilitation Scheme
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Orders End to ‘Forced Labour’ in Matheran, Directs Rehabilitation Scheme

The Supreme Court prohibited hand-pulled rickshaws in Matheran, declaring the practice a violation of Article 23 of the Constitution as it constitutes forced labour and offends human dignity. It directed the state to rehabilitate pullers by providing e-rickshaws through a welfare scheme, balancing ecological concerns with the constitutional mandate of social and economic justice. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns the eco-sensitive hill station of Matheran in Maharashtra, renowned as a pedestrian-only zone. The primary issues involved whether paver blocks could be laid on the main road to prevent soil erosion and if hand-pulled rickshaws, a long-standing mode of transport, could be replaced with battery-operated e-rickshaws. The state government and the Matheran Municipal Council...
Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court

The Supreme Court held that the authority's order, which rejected regularization claims on multiple fresh legal grounds—including qualifications and financial burden—constituted valid compliance with the High Court's direction. Since the rejection was not solely based on the prohibited "contract labour" ground, it could not be construed as wilful disobedience amounting to contempt of court. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from drivers engaged by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) seeking regularization of their services. Their initial representation was rejected by the NOIDA CEO in 2017 solely on the ground that they were intermittent workers hired through a contractor. This rejection was challenged and set aside by the Allahabad High Court in February 2020, wh...