CASE LAW PRESENTATION:

LABOR LAW
Sujana Koirala

Preliminary Details
Name of the case: Chief

of Swalambhan
Bikash Commission, Mukunda Bista vs.
Labor Court et. al.
Subject matter: Certiorari
Decided: 2063/7/14
Justice: Kalyan Shrestha.

DETAILS
Rajendra Prashad Bhattarai (Hereafter referred

to as R) was employed in an office (Hereafter

referred to as O) from 2055/4/12. He was
dismissed on the grounds of hampering the
work environment of the office on 2058/11/22.
Upon the dismissal R was given Rs. 39,951-/
as per the requirement. After which, R
demanded rest of the payment (of amount Rs.
15,012-/ for the sick leaves, personal leave and
medical costs, through an application to Labor
Ministry.

CONTD

The Labor Office passed a judgment on Rs

favor, stating that he be given Rs. 13,792-/

out of requested amount.
O appealed to the Labor Court being
unsatisfied with the decision passed. The
Labor court upheld the decision of Labor
office.
Which is why on absence of alternative
remedy, the office filed a writ petition to
supreme court.

Petitioners claim

The Petitioner office claimed that since it was a

social institution, it is not bound by the clauses

of Labor Act and Regulation.
Even the Labor Regulation does not provide that
a retired employee be given sick leave.
Because R was well aware that he was working
on a social institution, the decision of granting
him the money for sick leave is hence against
the contractual obligations, the policy of
institution as well as existent laws.

Supreme Court Ruling

A. The related Act is only mandated to decide

whether or not an institution is exclusive of its
jurisdiction. Such is to be clearly stated on the
act itself. And except for such clear declaration
in the act, any institution cannot claim such
exclusivity. Thus the claim made by the
petitioner that O does not fall under the
jurisdiction of Labor Act and Regulation, holds
moot.

Contd

B. The Labor Act has clearly mentioned about

payment to the worker for saving the
allocated personal leaves and medical leaves.
Also the Contract between R and O nowhere
mentions that the allocated personal leaves
and medical leaves remain unpaid. Hence,
the contract must be interpreted in the light
as supportive to the workers welfare.

Contd

C. Except in the cases where it is explicitly

mentioned otherwise, if a contract is silent
regarding workers pay leave benefits, it
cannot be interpreted in the light that a
corporation is not liable to give any benefits to
the worker.
D. And as it is seen that the petitioner office
employs more than 10 staffs , it falls under the
definition of an establishment as per Section
2(b) of Labor Act, 2048. Which is why, the
office falls under the purview of the
aforementioned Act.

Conclusion
Thus, the writ was quashed and decision on

favor of R was upheld.