IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M.K.THAKKER
Darshan Vrajlal Kotecha – Appellant
Versus
Labour Court, Rajkot – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. K. THAKKER, J.
ORDER IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14161 OF 2022
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Varun Patel waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent.
2. Since the issue raised in the these petitions are similar, they are being decided by a common judgment. Facts of Special Civil Application No.14161 of 2022 is taken for consideration of the disposal of these petitions.
3. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 16.12.2021 passed in Miscellaneous Application No.12 of 2019 in Reference (L.C.R.) No.72 of 2018 by the learned Presiding Officer, labour court, Rajkot allowing the restoration application under Rule 26 A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rule, 1966 and restoration of the reference being Reference No.72 of 2018 to its original file.
4. It is the case of the present petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Area Sales Manager with respondent No.2 Company vide appointment letter dated 15.03.2018 and the petitioner has joined respondent No.2 Company on 09.04.2018. At the time of appointment, petitioner was made to understand that he has to travel around
The court reconsidered the determination of employee status under the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing the need for a proper inquiry into workman classification due to termination disputes.
A litigant cannot escape responsibility for proceedings failures by blaming their advocate; vigilance regarding one's rights is essential.
The court upheld the Labour Court's order for reinstatement and back wages, emphasizing the equal application of the law of limitation and the petitioner's failure to present its case.
The court affirmed that termination without a departmental inquiry is illegal, and reinstatement is justified when the employer fails to present evidence despite multiple opportunities.
The court emphasized that mere assertions of rights do not justify delay in legal proceedings unless supported by substantial reasons, enforcing adherence to limitation principles.
The court affirmed that a party cannot disown its advocate's negligence, holding that the actions of an appointed advocate bind the client, reinforcing accountability in legal proceedings.
Delay in filing a reference does not preclude adjudication on merits, especially when the dispute remains alive.
The court affirmed that termination under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable to part-time workers, allowing for reinstatement and back wages.
Labour Court has held against the workman on the basis that the documents like pay sleep, muster roll etc. are not produced. But, at this juncture, it is require to peruse the oral evidence of the wo....
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.