Back
MAUNA M. BHATT
Babulal Ambalal Brahmbhatt – Appellant
Versus
P. Met High Tech Company Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Kshitij Vakil, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1.
2. Workman has filed this petition challenging the award of the Labour Court, Vadodara 10.08.2016, wherein reference filed by the workman was partly allowed directing to reinstate without backwages. Cost of Rs.2500/- was also awarded.
3. Brief facts referred in the petition are as under:
3.1. The petitioner – workman was working as watchman in the respondent – Company from 18.06.1996. He was served with show cause notice cum charge-sheet dated 24.02.2001, for the misconduct referred in the charge-sheet. Inquiry was conducted and order of dismissal dated 02.08.2001 was passed. During inquiry proceeding, the workman was put under suspension w.e.f. 20.02.2001. The order of dismissal was challenged before the Labour Court registered as Reference (LCB) No.1080 of 2001. Upon adjudication, the Labour Court, Vadodara directed the respondent – Company to reinstate the workman with cost of Rs.2500/-. Since, backwages were not awarded and continuity was not referred, the workman preferred present petition.
4. Heard Mr. Ramnandan Singh, learned advocate for
The main legal point established is that reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages is the normal rule in cases of wrongful termination of service, subject to various considerations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the onus on the workman to establish completion of 240 days in a year and the principles for awarding reinstatement and backwages.
workman has retired from the services and, therefore, whatever benefit is available to the workman, after her retirement, needs to be granted to her due to the order of reinstatement with continuity ....
Grant of a relief of reinstatement, it is trite, is not automatic. Grant of back wages is also not automatic. The Industrial Courts while exercising their power under Section 11A of the Industrial Di....
The court upheld the principle that the punishment should be proportionate to the proven charges of misconduct, and the invocation of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act was justified in this ....
Termination without following Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is unlawful, warranting reinstatement and continuity of service.
The burden of proof lies on the employer to establish the voluntary nature of the workman's resignation, and the court emphasized the principles governing the payment of back wages.
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
