Back
BHARGAV D. KARIA
Mehul Balmukundbhai Trivedi – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Executive Engineer – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bhargav D. Karia, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. I.G. Joshi for learned advocate Mr. Vyom Shah for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah for the respondent State.
2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Award and Order dated 29th May, 2014 passed in Reference (LCA) No.1 of 2012 by the Labour Court, Amreli.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving on the post of driver with respondent no.1 since 02.07.2009 and was paid Rs. 179.80 per day as wages.
4. The services of the petitioner came to be terminated orally on 18.06.2011. The petitioner therefore, issued demand notice dated 19.09.2011. As the respondents did not reply to the same, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court, Amreli being Reference (LCA) NO. 1 of 2012.
5. The petitioner filed his statement of claim at Exh.6 stating that he was working with respondent no.1 since 02.07.2009 on the post of driver and was paid salary of Rs. 179.80 per day and was illegally terminated by oral order dated 18.06.2011 without any fault on his part.
Reinstatement is the default remedy for unlawful termination under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing the necessity of due process.
The award of compensation instead of reinstatement based on the violation of Sec.25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act is unjustified, as the termination lacked proper evidentiary support.
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.
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....
In cases of illegal termination, reinstatement with back wages is the norm, but courts may instead award reasonable compensation based on the context of service and misconduct.
Since litigious employer has gone back and forth from this Court before the Single Judge to the Division Bench and then Supreme Court and back on two occasions rendering the workman without the fruit....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of services was illegal and unjustified, and the principles of 'last come, first go' were not followed. The court also emphasi....
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
