Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
Grindwell Norton Limited A Company Incorporated Under Comp A – Appellant
Versus
Chairman-cum-presiding Officer – Respondent
ORDER:
MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J.
The writ petition No.21411 of 2006 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer:-
“……a) call for the records pertaining to the impugned Award dated June 30, 2006 in I.D.No.135 of 2003 passed by the Respondent No.1 viz. the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur and Published by the Deputy Secretary to Government Labour Employment Training Factories (Lab.I) Department G.O.Rt.No.1839 dated August 29, 2006 on 25th September 2006 and b) quash the same by the issuance of a Writ more particularly, in the nature of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ order or direction declaring the same as wholly without jurisdiction., and pass such other further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case while awarding costs of these proceedings to the petitioner and render justice….”
2. The writ petition No.25556 of 2006 is instituted under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, praying the relief as under :-
“……to issue a writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling upon re
The court ruled that a workman who performs supervisory duties and earns above the statutory salary limit does not qualify as a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, rendering the Tribunal's a....
The definition of 'Workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act excludes those in supervisory roles who exceed statutory salary limits, impacting jurisdiction over disputes.
The burden of proof regarding the status of an employee as a 'workman' lies with the employee, not the employer, as per the Industrial Disputes Act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and its application to the case at ha....
The court determined that the tribunal misapplied the law regarding employment and erred in concluding the existence of an employer-employee relationship, necessitating the annulment of the reinstate....
The illegal refusal of employment by the management necessitated compensation for the workman, underscoring the employer's burden to prove any contrary claims.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'workmen' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and its application to determine the jurisdict....
The court established that the classification of an employee as a 'workman' depends on the nature of their duties rather than their job title or designation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
