N. V. ANJARIA, BHARGAV D. KARIA
Dharmsinh Desai University – Appellant
Versus
Natubhai Kantibhai Raval – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N.V.ANJARIA, J.
All these appeals arise out of common judgment dated 16.10.2019 of learned single Judge in respect of the Special Civil Applications. The petitions in turn arose out of common judgment and award of Labour Court, Nadiad in different Reference cases.
1.1 All the appeals were notified together and were heard together. They are treated for present judgment simultaneously since the facts involved are similar and the issues identical.
2. In all Reference cases, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the workman concerned with 25% backwages. Reference (LCN) Case No.64 of 2008 was treated as main which correspond to Special Civil Application No.5501 of 2017, which in turn became subject matter of challenge in Letters Patent Appeal No.599 of 2022, the first captioned appeal herein. Learned single Judge dismissed all the petitions upholding the judgment and award of the Labour Court of reinstatement and backwages as above.
3. Before the Labour Court, it was the workmen in statement of claim at Exhibit 4 inter alia stated that they were appointed in service in va
Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal [(2010) 6 SCC 773]
Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation Vs. Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha [(2014) 16 SCC 130]
Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council
Incharge Officer and Another Vs. Shankar Shetty [(2010) 9 SCC 126]
GDA v. Ashok Kumar [2008 (4) SCC 261]
Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board [(2009) 15 SCC 327]
Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai [2006 (11) SCC 684]
Jasmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Another [(2015) 4 SCC 458]
Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat
Rajasthan Development Corpn. v. Gitam Singh [(2013) 5 SCC 136]
Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute [2008 (5) SCC 75]
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Vinodkumar Tiwari [(2016) 16 SCC 610
State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1
U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey [2006 (1) SCC 479]
Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation Vs. M.C. Joshi
Vice Chancellor Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Vs. Akhileshkumar Khare
The relief of reinstatement and backwages is not automatic and should be independently assessed, especially for daily rated workmen. The court should consider various factors, including the status of....
The judgment emphasizes that relief of reinstatement and grant of backwages may not follow automatically, especially for daily-rated workmen, and the court may opt for lump-sum compensation instead.
Monetary compensation, not reinstatement, is appropriate for daily wage workers upon finding illegal terminations; reinstatement is not automatic even when procedural violations are confirmed.
Relief by way of reinstatement with backwages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescrib....
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....
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....
The court established that reinstatement may not be the automatic consequence of wrongful termination, especially for daily wagers, and awarded monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
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 ....
The main legal point established is that in cases of illegal termination, the court may consider exceptional circumstances and order lump sum compensation instead of reinstatement, taking into accoun....
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.