Back
GAURANG KANTH
Central Warehousing Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Ekpal Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Gaurang Kanth, J.
1. The present Writ Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India assailing the Award dated 26.05.2004 (`Impugned Award') passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-II, New Delhi (`Labour Court') in I.D. No. 100/1998, titled as `Ekpal Singh v. Management of Central Warehousing Corporations'.
2. Vide the Impugned Award, the learned Labour Court decided the dispute, referred to it by the Central Government, in favour of the Respondent Workman and against the Petitioner Corporation. Learned Labour Court observed that the action of the Management of the Petitioner in terminating the service of the Respondent was not justified and thus, it directed the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent from 20.08.1996 with 10% back wages.
3. During the pendency of the present Writ Petition, the unfortunate demise of Respondent took place on 07.12.2014. Legal heir of the Respondent was substituted in place of deceased Respondent vide order of this Court dated 09.07.2015.
BRIEF FACTS RELEVANT FOR ADJUDICATION OF PRESENT WRIT PETITION
4. It is the case of the Respondent
The submission of a forged educational document can justify the termination of employment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the employer must follow the relevant provisions of the I.D. Act before terminating the service of an employee, and failure to do so may entit....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the examination of the employer-employee relationship and the maintainability of the application under Section 33(A) of the ID Act.
The court emphasized the importance of proving the existence of an employer-employee relationship and highlighted the limited jurisdiction of the court in examining the award passed by the Industrial....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of the service conditions of employees was within the domain of the contractor, and the absence of evidence showing control ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the contents of documents by primary evidence or secondary evidence under Sections 61 and 65 of the Evidence Act.
Termination without valid reason and entitlement of wages for muster roll employees.
The burden of proof for continuous service of 240 days rests on the workman, and mere self-serving statements are insufficient to establish this claim.
The illegal refusal of employment by the management necessitated compensation for the workman, underscoring the employer's burden to prove any contrary claims.
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
