Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M. K. THAKKER
SIR P P Institute of Science – Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. K. THAKKER , J.
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms. Vadodariya waives service of notice of Rule.
2. Since the issue raised in the these petitions are similar, they are being decided by a common judgment. The facts of Special Civil Application No.2766 of 2023 are taken for the purpose of adjudication.
3. This petition is filed challenging the order dated 24.08.2022 passed by the learned Labour Court in Misc. Application No.47 of 2021 as well as the award dated 19.07.2019 passed by the learned Reference Court in Reference (LCB) No.126 of 2016.
4 It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 was working as a Peon with the petitioner for different periods in the respective petitions, namely, for 08 years in Special Civil Application No.2844 of 2023, for 04 years and 07 months in Special Civil Application No.2815 of 2023, and for 02 years in another case, and their services came to be terminated on 17.05.2016. Aggrieved by the said termination, respondent No.2 raised an industrial dispute before the learned Labour Court seeking reinstatement and quashment of the termination order, which came to be registered as Reference (LCB) No.126 of 2016. Though noti
A litigant cannot escape responsibility for proceedings failures by blaming their advocate; vigilance regarding one's rights is essential.
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 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.
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.
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....
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.
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
