Back
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Garrison Engineer (central), Delhi Cantt – Appellant
Versus
M. J. Prasad – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts
1. This is a petition challenging the impugned orders dated 30th October, 2019, 27th July, 2020, and 20th August, 2020 by which notice for recovery for a sum of Rs.1,95,980/- and for attachment of property under Sections 136 and 139 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, has been issued to the Petitioner/Management (hereinafter "Management'), by the SDM, Delhi Cantt. and by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Delhi (hereinafter "RLC).
2. This petition has a long history. The Respondent-Workman (hereinafter "Workman') was an employee of the Management since 1982 and he was working as a wireman. He was regularized in 1984 but was terminated vide order dated 15th November, 1985. The said termination was challenged by the Workman. Vide final order dated 16th June, 2000, the termination was held to be valid and justified by the CGIT in ID No.87/87 titled MJ Prashad v. AGEB&RT Garrison Engineer (Central). This order was challenged by the Workman before a Id. Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 6796/2001 titled MJ Porashad v. AGEBR&T Garrison Engineer (Central) & Anr. Vide order dated 17th April, 2012, this writ petition of the Workman was allowed in the followin
MACP/ACP benefits are not a matter of right and can only be granted to those workmen who have passed a trade test.
Employees reinstated with continuity in service are entitled to gratuity for the entire duration of employment, including the period post-termination, as per statutory provisions.
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....
In cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement with back wages is the normal rule unless the employer proves the employee was gainfully employed during the termination period.
Wrongful termination without employee fault, later quashed, entitles full back wages for absence period and ACP increments with service continuity, rejecting 'no work no pay' where employee willing b....
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
