Back
RAJENDRA M. SAREEN
Dhirubhai Mohanbhai – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Executive Engineer – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. By way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the judgement and award passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No.123 of 2001 dated 15/5/2007, by which the Labour Court has rejected the reference so far as the petitioners herein are concerned.
2. FACTS:
2.1. It is the case of the petitioners that they they were working as a daily wager Labourer with the respondent No.1 since many years and they have worked continuously with the respondent and had worked for more than 240 days in each and every year and were getting wages as per minimum wage. It is the case of the petitioners that their services were orally terminated w.e.f. 1/10/1987 without issuing notice, without paying notice pay or retrenchment. It is the case of the petitioners that juniors of the petitioners were retained by the respondent No.1 and after termination of the petitioners, other employees were employed. Thus, it is the case of the petitioners that the termination of the petitioners is in violation of the mandatory provisions of sections 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H) of the Industrial Dispute
Labour Court has held against the workman on the basis that the documents like pay sleep, muster roll etc. are not produced. But, at this juncture, it is require to peruse the oral evidence of the wo....
In a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies the workman is bound to prove that he had been in continuous service of 240 days during twelve months preceding the order of termination; in a case whe....
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
