Back
M. K. THAKKER
Gujarat State Handicraft Development Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Rameshbhai Khodabhai Bhoi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. K. Thakker, J.
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Aakash Modi waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent.
2. With the consent of both the parties heard finally.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmedabad dated 14.02.2020 in Reference T.No.1202 of 2003 whereby, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court has allowed the reference partly by declaring the termination of the respondent-workman is illegal and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman with 30% back wages with continuity of services.
4. The gist of the petition is as under:
4.1. The respondent workman has initially appointed as floorboy by Gujarat State Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd. from 26.06.1992 to 25.06.1993. He was appointed on contractual bases for the period of 2 years from 01.03.1994 in Gurjari Emporium at Madras by contractual appointment order dated 18.02.1994. The said store is for development of handloom and handicraft products. On completion of the above contractual period again the respondent-workman by contractual appointment order dated 22.04.1996 appointed as respondent-workman
Termination of a workman on a contractual basis may not constitute retrenchment if the employment is of a permanent nature, and unfair labor practices may warrant compensation instead of reinstatemen....
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 illegal termination cases involving daily-wage workers, reinstatement is not automatic; compensation and circumstances of employment should be evaluated.
Daily wage worker - Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen - Quantum of compensation - Termination of service of employee by way of retrenchment without complying with requirement of giving ....
The court ruled that termination due to non-renewal of a contractual appointment does not qualify as retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The court upheld that an employee's continuous service of over 240 days entitles him to protections under the Industrial Disputes Act, and any termination without adherence to statutory requirements ....
Termination of contractual employment does not equate to retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, limiting the right to claim reinstatement.
Service - There is no retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act, but, it is end of service due to contractual appointment and, therefore, Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act woul....
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
