Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S.SONAK
Prashant Natekar – Appellant
Versus
Colfax (India) Pvt Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. termination deemed unjustified; compensation awarded. (Para 3 , 10) |
| 2. employer argues prior judgment precludes reassessment. (Para 4 , 5 , 7) |
| 3. court rejects reinstatement due to lack of available work. (Para 6 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. burden on employer to show employee was employed post-termination. (Para 14 , 15 , 17) |
| 5. compensation increased to rs.4,00,000 due to unjustified termination. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. final order for payment and modification of award. (Para 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
M. S. SONAK, J.
1. None for the Petitioner. Mr. Singbal appears for the Respondent.
2. Since this is an old matter, there is no point in adjourning it any further.
3. The Petitioner-workman challenges the Labour Court’s Award dated 16.05.2012 by which the Labour Court, after holding that the Petitioner’s termination was illegal and unjustified, denied the Petitioner reinstatement, but awarded him compensation of only Rs.2,00,000/-.
4. Mr. Singbal, learned Counsel for the Respondent-employer, submitted that the employer had also challenged this very Award by instituting Writ Petition No.719/2012. He submitted that this petition was dismissed by order dated 07.01.2013 after holding that the Award d
Compensation in wrongful termination cases is subject to the proof of gainful employment by the worker post-termination; reinstatement can be denied based on loss of confidence.
In cases of illegal termination, reinstatement with back wages is the norm, but courts may instead award reasonable compensation based on the context of service and misconduct.
Since litigious employer has gone back and forth from this Court before the Single Judge to the Division Bench and then Supreme Court and back on two occasions rendering the workman without the fruit....
Rule 33 which prohibits an employee from taking employment elsewhere. Indeed, it was not even the pleaded case of the management that during the period of suspension, the appellant had left the Headq....
The court upheld the illegal termination of the respondents/workmen and their entitlement to reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, 194....
Once violation of Sections 25(F), (G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act is established, reinstatement should follow, as per the decision in Gauri Shanker vs. State of Rajasthan.
The dominant nature of the employee's duties determines workman status, and the burden of proof lies with the employer to establish the grounds for termination. The grant of backwages in cases of ill....
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
