Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M.K.THAKKER
Manharbhai Sukajibhai Baria – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Executive Engineer – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to dismissal of claim based on non-continuity of service (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on continuity of service requirements under id act (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court observations on evidence and admissions in cross-examination (Para 8 , 13) |
| 4. interpretation of section 25(b) of the id act (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. final order dismissing the petitions (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
M.K. THAKKER, J.
1. Since the issue raised in these petitions are similar, they are being decided by a common judgment. The facts of Special Civil Application No.2973 of 2020 of 2021 are taken for the purpose of adjudication.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr.Davda waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.
3. The present petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Godhra, dated 08.03.2019, whereby the reference filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish continuity of service.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was engaged by the respondent as a daily wager from 16.12.1992 in the Irrigation Patrolling Department and had been ser
Continuous service under the Industrial Disputes Act requires either uninterrupted service for one year or 240 days worked in the preceding twelve months; failure to establish either ground results i....
Termination of service It cannot be presumed that any junior is considered without there being any evidence on record and the learned Single Judge has therefore rightly come to the conclusion that th....
To employ workmen as “badlis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen.”
Point of law :Labour Law - There is no proof that the workman has worked for 240 days and, therefore, it was held by the Labour Court that there is no proof that the workman was working continuously ....
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 ....
The interpretation of 'continuous service' under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act includes all days worked, and any termination without following due process is deemed illegal.
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
