You are on page 1of 13

Business Law

Case Studies

Juddha Match Factory Vs. Labour Court


The Show Down

About

It Is A Case Filed By Surendra Lal Suwal, An Authorized Person Of Judda Match Factory Ltd.

(Biratnagar) Against Labor Court.


According To The Claims, The Juddha Match Factory (Biratnagar) Was In Dilapidated

Condition, To Restart The Factory And Give Life To It.


The Management And The Workers Signed The Agreement Since The Factory Do Not Have

Capacity To Pay Whole Amount To Workers One As Mentioned Is Labor Act 2048 Sec (15).

Case : Certiorari Mandamus


Related Law: Labor Act 2048 Sec (8), 25 (1), 60, 79 Contract Act : 2056 Section (13)

Case Decision No: 8871 Date Of Decision : 2069/5/24

F A C T

According To The Agreement The Amount To Be Given To The Workers For Their Contribution Will Not Be Paid At Once. They Agreed That The Amount Would Be Paid At The Rate Of 20% Of The Monthly Income Unto 3 Years Until The Amount Is Paid. Although The Agreement Was Followed And The Workers Were Paid According To The Agreement, The Labors Side Filed A Case In Labor Office, Biratnagar. Labor Office Gave Decision In Favor Of The Workers On 2053/1/21. The Factory Appealed Against The Decision In Labor Court Of Kathmandu. The Labor Court Yet Again, Decided In Favor Of Workers. Therefore, The Factory Has Filed A Writ Petition At The Supreme Court Asking To Reject The Previous Decision Made By Labor Court To Ensure

Reply of labor court to Supreme Court.


The decision of the case by labor office, koshi has been

according to the labor act, justice, and constitution of the country. plaintiff so the case against labor court should be cancelled or dismissed.

The decision made does not hamper any legal right of the

Reply of workers

We, the labors are also the shareholders of the juddha match factory. We had an agreement with the defendant parties.

Pleading of defendant and legal issues

The decision made by labor office, biratnagar is according to labor act, justice, and constitution of the
country. Furthermore, the decision does not affect any legal rights of the plaintiff, So the case against labor court should be cancelled or dismissed. The labor is not only the workers but they are also the owners of the company. When they own 51.37 Shares. The management of the company promised to provide all facilities to workers as per labor act. Furthermore the contract made in 2061/10/27 is not according to the labor act 2048. Therefore, the demand of application of plaintiff that is based on such contract should not be given importance.

To be Continued

On basis of provision of section 25 NCA 2049, the labors can suit the management if the management does not provide the facilities to the workers (labors) But, The management has not clash (impact) any rights of the plaintiff so the

the plaintiff was not satisfied with the decision of labor office so, it again case in the labor court but the decision was against them.

Therefore, the case done by the labor must be cancelled.

Judgment
Since the decision of labor office of biratnagar held in 2063/1/21 and the decision of labor court of

Kathmandu of date 2065/10/15 do not harm the legal rights of plaintiff party, the case is dismissed.
One cannot get rid of the contract that is done on the transfer of ownership of management with the basis

of legal rights.
The workers of the company have legal rights to get their wages and other facilities as prescribed by the

law and when the company itself expels employees from work to meets its desired number of employees then they cannot leave their responsibility of providing employees benefits by any reason.
In labor act 2048 Section(79) mentions that if there occurs any dispute between employee and

management during the operations of company then the agreement made to conclude the dispute must be treated as law to the concerned parties and must be registered in labor institution. With this provision, it cannot be implementing on employees who get resignation in a regular basis since the contract is made on management and ownership for operation of company but without any dispute.

Basis Of Decisions:
1. Does the labor office of biratnagar have rights to accept the application of resigned labor? According to labor, act2048 sec 25.1 labor can give application in labor office in case of not getting facilities that they are rendered
2. Whether the legal rights of labor are considered by the contract made in 2061/10/17 when 51.37 shares of labors are handover to surendra lal suwal? The legal rights of labor are not considered in the contract made in 2061 /10/17 the contract mentioned following things: I. Resignation is given to disabled employees and excess number of employees as per companys present rule II. 20% allowance is provided to the retired employees up to 3 years until the amount is paid III. The management decides whether to accept or reject the self-resignation of workers. If accepted them the method of providing facilities is as per other retired employees.

3. Whether the contract made in 2061/10/27 implements the rights of labor provided in labor act 2048? The labors act 2048 Section (8) mentions that the transfer of ownership of factory must not affect the labors provision. Furthermore the management must provide the wages, compensation, and other facilities compulsory to employees the contract made in 2061/10/27 avoid these duties and thus it does not implement the rights of labor provide in labor act 2048.

4.Can the labor can claim for the salary and other facilities provided by labor act after the la suwal takes the responsibility of operating the factory?
As per contract dated 2061/10/27 the transfer ownership to surendra does not hamper the labors section 22 the responsibility of payment of salary and providing other facilities lie upon him the labors can claim for their legal rights and company also cannot deny its responsibility.

5.What kind of rights has been provided by the labor act 2048 the labor of the juddha factory biratnagar related with the wages ? Section 4 of la 2048 defines about the wages, inflation allowances and facilities. It defines that responsibility of salary investment and provision of allowances and facilities lies on the owner of the factory. The company cannot deduct salary expect in the condition of absenteeism, fines, suspension , advance, loss etc., in case any deduction is made it becomes illegal. 6.Whether the subject matter of the case is related with the can 2048 sec 79? Section 70 states if any disputes occur during the operation of the company and to resolve it if any agreement is made such agreement should be register in the labor office. In the case agreement has been made without any disputes but it is related with the operations and with the ownership and management of the company so the agreement don not define the right of retired employees. The worker of company has legal right to get wages health treatment and other facilities. They can case a file against management. If not provided so the decision made by labor office biratnagar and labor court Kathmandu is valid. Furthermore this decision does not effect the legal right of plaintiff at all so the decision of the labor office biratnagar and labor court Kathmandu was not required to revise.

Thank U !!

You might also like