Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SHAIL JAIN
Ashok Hotel (A Unit of ITDC) New Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SHAIL JAIN, J.
1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner/management assailing the Award dated 01.07.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi in I.D. No. 266/96, whereby the Labour Court held the termination of the Respondent/workman to be illegal for non-compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) and directed his reinstatement with full back wages.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent/workman, Sh. Mukesh Kumar, raised an industrial dispute alleging illegal termination of his services by the Petitioner/management. The appropriate Government, being satisfied that an industrial dispute existed between the parties, made a reference for adjudication under Sections 10 (1)(a) and 12(5) of the Act, vide Order No. F.24(2436)/96-Lab./48069-73 dated 30.10.1996, in the following terms:
“Whether the services of Sh. Mukesh Kumar have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”
3. Before the Labour Court,
In illegal termination cases involving daily-wage workers, reinstatement is not automatic; compensation and circumstances of employment should be evaluated.
The court upheld the illegal termination of the respondents/workmen and their entitlement to reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, 194....
Labour Law - Reinstatement in services – It is trite law that when termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under ....
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 ....
The court upheld that an employee's continuous service of over 240 days entitles him to protections under the Industrial Disputes Act, and any termination without adherence to statutory requirements ....
The main legal point established is that continuous work for 240 days entitles a worker to protection under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, but reinstatement may not be the appropriate ....
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....
Termination of casual workers constituted illegal retrenchment under Section 25F due to failure to provide notice and compensation; reinstatement replaced with monetary compensation due to the delay ....
Rule 33 which prohibits an employee from taking employment elsewhere. Indeed, it was not even the pleaded case of the management that during the period of suspension, the appellant had left the Headq....
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
