Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Vandana – Appellant
Versus
HBL Globel Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background on termination of petitioner. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguing for reinstatement and back wages. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. management counters by stating performance issues. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. labour court's findings on termination legality. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's ruling on reinstatement and compensation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. supreme court precedents on compensation versus reinstatement. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. final ruling on compensation and litigation expenses. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 8. order of compensation payment and case conclusion. (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned Award dated 15th October, 2019 passed by the Labour Court in LC/DID No.408/16 titled Ms. Vandana v. M/s. HBL Globel Pvt. Ltd. By the impugned Award, the Petitioner-Workman (hereinafter `Petitioner') who had challenged the termination of her services was awarded a sum of Rs.1,02,420/-, instead of reinstatement in service with full back wages and continuity of service along with all the consequential benefits, as prayed for in the claim petition.
3. The bac
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
