Back
M. K. THAKKER
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Sadgunbhai Semulbhai Solanki – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. K. Thakker, J.
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Nirav Singhavi waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent.
2. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India thereby, challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Recovery Application No.558 of 2013 dated 23.01.2018 whereby, the application preferred by the respondent came to be allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay arrears of leave encashment of Rs.1,63,620/- with cost of Rs.1,000/-.
3. It is case of the petitioner that respondent herein was having education qualification of SCC pass and was offered the work in the year 1975 and he worked upto 01.04.1981. Thereafter, appointment of the respondent was made on the post of Turner with effect from 01.01.1982 in the pay scale of 266-350. As respondent failed to clear departmental exam he was reverted to the post of Helper in the year 1986 and was placed in the pay scale of 196-231. Thereafter, his appointment was made as Junior Clerk from 09.01.1989 and was granted pay scale of 950-1500. Again he was reverted back to the post of Helper from 04.01.1993 due to not passing the departmen
The right to encash earned leave is a property right protected under the Constitution, and depriving an employee of this right without valid statutory provision is impermissible.
Recovery of leave encashment from retirees is impermissible without due process, including affording notice and an opportunity to defend against claims of wrongful payment.
Leave encashment constitutes salary and must be paid upon resignation if accepted unconditionally, affirming the principles of fair employment rights.
Claims under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act must be based on pre-existing rights, and the tribunal's jurisdiction is affirmed in determining such claims.
Retired employees are entitled to leave encashment as a matter of legal right, and undue delays in payment due to pending inquiries are not justified.
An employee removed from service retains the right to leave encashment, as such benefits constitute property under Article 300A, not forfeited by removal from service.
Acceptance of benefits under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme precludes subsequent claims of coercion or reinstatement.
Delay in filing a reference does not preclude adjudication on merits, especially when the dispute remains alive.
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
