SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.
Gurjant Singh & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 25233 Of 2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/07/2013 in LPA No. 172 Of 2012 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh)
Decided On : 14-10-2015
ORDER :
The High Court has by the impugned order not only set-aside order dated 07.12.2007 passed by the Labour Court dismissing the reference as withdrawn/infrcutuous but also directed the Labour Court to restore the reference to its original number and commence the proceedings on the same from the stage at which the same were dismissed. The High Court has further held that the appellant would be entitled to supplement their references with subsequent events referred to in the impugned order. At the same time, the respondents have been allowed to take all factual and legal pleas available to them before the Labour Court who shall then decide all those questions in accordance with law. The High Court has further directed the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, Patiala to expedite the disposal of the reference. For facility of reference we may extract the operative portion of the order passed by the Labour Court:
2. By our Order dated 30.09.2013, we had while issuing notice in the special leave petition directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding service of the petitioners pending further orders. This order by no means prevented the Labour Court from taking the proceedings further and concluding the same in accordance with the directions issued by the High Court. Unfortunately however for some reason or the other, the proceedings have not made any progress whatsoever. We see no reason why the proceedings should not be recommenced in terms of the order passed by the High Court and concluded as expeditiously as possible but in any case within a period of six months form the date a copy of this order is filed before the Labour Court by learned counsel for the parties.
3. We accordingly direct the Labour Court to take up the proceedings strictly in accordance with the observations made by the High Court in para 13 extracted above and to conclude the same expeditiously. A copy of the award which the Labour Court may make shall be filed before this Court on the next date of hearing. These proceedings shall in the meantime stand over, to be listed again in the month of May, 2016. We make it clear that the order passed by us on 30.09.2013 shall be understood to only mean that the services of the petitioner shall not be terminated by the respondent without the permission of this Court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.