Back
A. S. SUPEHIA, MAUNA M. BHATT
CHIEF OFFICER – Appellant
Versus
RAJESH PANDE – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
1. Admit. Mr. Hardik Dave, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent No. 1.
2. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
3. The present appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, 1865, is directed against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 22.10.2018 passed in caption writ petition, wherein the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant assailing the award dated 06.12.2003 passed by the Labour Court at Valsad in Reference (LCV) No. 2001 of 1990.
4. The facts as recorded by the learned Single Judge are not in dispute with regard to the engagement of the respondent as a workman and his termination. It appears that respondent-workman was illegally terminated on 10.06.1989, which culminated into Reference (LCV) No. 2001 of 1990. The respondent-workman was employed as a Octroi Clerk in December, 1983 and he worked with the Nagarpalika for almost 06 to 07 years, till his services came to be terminated on oral instruction on 10.06.1989. From the tenor of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we find tha
Termination without a proper inquiry and adherence to statutory procedures is unlawful, warranting reinstatement and back wages.
Point in Issue :Whether in the facts termination of service of respondent proper and sustainable.
Labour law – Reinstatement - Granting of relief of reinstatement after such a long gap will not serve any purpose and, therefore, this Court is of the view that if the order to grant compensation
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the employer must follow the relevant provisions of the I.D. Act before terminating the service of an employee, and failure to do so may entit....
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....
Delay in filing a reference does not preclude adjudication on merits, especially when the dispute remains alive.
It is well settled that for an order of termination of the services of a workman to be held illegal on account of non-payment of retrenchment compensation, it is essential for the workman to establis....
Workman - Order of Reinstatement - Labour Court has not committed any error of law and facts in passing order of reinstatement of workman as a daily wager “Sweeper”.
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
