Back
GAURANG KANTH
Gomati – Appellant
Versus
G. T. B. Hospital – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Gaurang Kanth, J.
1. The present Writ Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner assailing the Award dated 08.03.2004 ('Impugned Award') passed by the Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi in I.D. No. 154/1990, titled as 'M/s Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, through Medical Superintendent Vs Sh. Vinod Kumar & Smt. Gomati, through Hospital Employee's Union.'
2. Vide the said Impugned Award, the learned Labour Court while deciding the dispute referred to it, dismissed the claim of the Petitioner and held that the termination of Petitioner/Gomati is not illegal and/ or unjustified.
BRIEF FACTS RELEVANT FOR ADJUDICATION OF PRESENT WRIT PETITION
3. It is the case of the Petitioner that she was appointed on 21.12.1987 as a Safai Karamchari by the Respondent on daily wages/ muster roll/ casual worker and she was paid as per Minimum Wages Act, 1948. However, she was illegally terminated from service on 24.07.1989 by the Respondent.
4. Hence, she raised an industrial dispute qua her illegal termination against the Respondent and the same was referred to a Conciliation Officer. But since the conciliation proceedings failed, the Delhi Government referred the dispute to
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in order to prove violation of Sections 25F, G & H of the I.D. Act, the Petitioner must demonstrate that she had worked for 240 days in a cale....
The burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish continuous employment and violation of labor laws, and mere non-production of documents by the employer may not suffice to prove the claim.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Petitioner failed to prove that the termination was in violation of Section 25-H of the I.D. Act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the definition of 'retrenchment' under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act in determining the....
Termination of service It cannot be presumed that any junior is considered without there being any evidence on record and the learned Single Judge has therefore rightly come to the conclusion that th....
It is settled law that for attracting applicability of Section 25-G of Act, workman is not required to prove that he had worked for a period of 240 days during 12 calendar months preceding terminatio....
Point of law :Labour Law - There is no proof that the workman has worked for 240 days and, therefore, it was held by the Labour Court that there is no proof that the workman was working continuously ....
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
