Back
M. K. THAKKER
BABRA NAGAR PALIKA – Appellant
Versus
ASHOKBHAI SOMABHAI VARSADA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.K. THAKKER, J.
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms. Siddhi Vadodariya waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent.
2. The present petition is filed challenging the judgment and award of the learned Industrial Tribunal of Bhavnagar dated 24.11.2022 in reference IT No. 1 of 2020 whereby, the directions were issued to the present petitioner to regularise the service of the respondent as a valman and grant permanancy benefits i.e. seniority, promotion, retirement benefits, gratuity etc. from the date on 01.08.2003. It was further clarified by the learned Tribunal that period from 01.08.2003 to 04.01.2020 was treated as notional and respondent- employees fare not entitled any arears. The aforesaid award is challenged by filing the petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. The facts leading to the present petition is that on 09.01.2020 the respondent no. 1 filed statement of claim before the learned Tribunal, Bhavnagar below Exh.12 alleging that he was appointed from 01.08.2003 as Valman and on 21.07.2018 he served demand notice through registered post and through Union but as the same was remained unattended therefore, on 28.05.2019 ch
Regularization of service requires proof of unfair labor practices; long service alone does not confer entitlement without due procedure.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the employer's failure to fill permanent posts and continuing to employ workers on a temporary basis amounts to unfair labour practice, as ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to regularise the service of a workman, despite the availability of vacant posts, constitutes unfair labor practices under Section....
The obligation of the employer to accommodate the workman, the power of the Labour Court to grant relief, and the legal principles related to unfair labour practices and regularisation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the municipality's actions constituted unfair labor practice, justifying the regularisation of the respondent-workman's service. The court emp....
The obligation of the employer to regularise the service of workmen and the prohibition against unfair labour practices under Section 25T of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
The court affirmed that prolonged employment of daily wagers without regularization constitutes unfair labor practice, necessitating their regularization under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The court affirmed that prolonged employment without regularization constitutes unfair labor practice, mandating permanent status and equal pay for work of similar nature.
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
