Back
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN
Mira Daruka, W/o Late Prem Kumar Daruka – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Labour, Bihar, Patna – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
A counter affidavit has been filed in L.P.A. No. 1291 of 2019 by Mr. Nandlal Kumar Singh, the learned Advocate for the respondents, in Court.
2. Let it be taken on record.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The two Appeals, namely, L.P.A. Nos. 1128 of 2019 and 1291 of 2019 have been taken up together and are being disposed off by this common order.
5. The aforesaid Appeals are on behalf of the employer and the workmen respectively.
6. With respect to removal/retrenchment of seven of the workmen, there was a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short,theI.D.Act,1947) for adjudication whether their termination was justified and if so, what relief could be granted to them.
7. On behalf of the workmen, it was contended before the Tribunal in Reference Case No. 1 of 1997 that they had joined the employer/Gas Agency between the year 1983 to 1993 and had remained in continuous service till 17.12.1994 when they were terminated, which letter of termination was found hung over the outer wall of the Gas Agency. It was their consistent case before the Tribunal that they had made complaints to the management for not being
Point of law; Suspension of service - workman herein also contributed the events led to his dismissal. Further it could be gathered that the workman herein remained out of service and contributed not....
However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour C....
there is a breach of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act and as there is a delay of 11 years in preferring the reference, instead of granting reinstatement a lump sum amount as full and final settlement wil....
The employer bears the burden of proving that the worker was gainfully employed during the dispute period to deny back wages; failure to provide evidence supports the worker's claim to back wages.
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.
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
