Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M.K.THAKKER
Gujarat Kamgar Panchayat – Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer, Industrial Court – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging amendment application in industrial dispute (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on the legality and process of retrenchment (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. jurisdictional boundaries in adjudication of industrial disputes (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. distinction between different types of disputes under id act (Para 11) |
| 5. denial of amendment for expanding the dispute scope (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. conclusion on dismissal of the petition (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned senior advocate Mr.K.M.Patel with learned advocate Mr.Dilip Rana waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2 and 3.
2. Present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India thereby challenging the order passed by the learned Tribunal at Vadodara dated 15.09.2023 passed below Exh.33 in Reference (I.T.) No.42 of 2018 challenging the application filed for amendment of statement of claim. This petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 05.08.2024, however, while dismissing the petition, the observation was made that it is open for the petitioner to take all the contention before the learned Tribunal at the time of arguments and the learned Industrial Tribunal shall
The jurisdiction of an Industrial Tribunal is confined to the terms of reference provided by the government, excluding unrelated or independent issues.
The validity of closure negates grounds for reinstatement unless framed properly within statutory provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the consequences of an illegal closure are statutorily prescribed, and the workmen are entitled to all the benefits under any law for the time....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Industrial Tribunal did not exceed the scope of the reference and considered all applicable statutes, including the Industrial Disputes (U....
Closure of business does not constitute retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, reaffirming that termination due to closure is outside statutory definitions of retrenchment.
Section 33C(2) is more comprehensive than Section 33C(1). Section 33C(2) applies not only to cases of settlement or award or cases under Chapter VA of the Act, but to other cases as well. By a proces....
The deeming fiction of permission for retrenchment under Section 25 N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the availability of an effective alternative remedy for the appellant under the Act.
The jurisdiction of Labour Courts is confined to adjudicating individual disputes, and claims of coercion regarding voluntary retirement can be validly presented before them despite accepted VR schem....
Point of Law- Termination of service - Reinstatement - while contesting the reference it is open to a party to raise pleadings that what was referred for adjudication was not an industrial dispute at....
A workman must demonstrate that an industrial dispute remains alive despite delays; failure to do so renders the dispute stale and unenforceable.
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
