Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Kishlay Foods Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Mr. Y Kothari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. A Dasgupta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B Das, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent No.3. Ms. U Das, the learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam who appears on behalf of respondent No.1.
2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court challenging the award dated 10.05.2016 passed in Reference Case No.2/2015 and Case No.1/2015. The petitioner has also assailed the execution proceedings being Execution Case No.4/2016 pending before the Court of the learned District Judge, Kamrup(M) Guwahati, which is consequential to the Award dated 10.05.2016.
3. The brief facts which had led to the present proceedings are that the respondent No.3 was initially appointed as a contract employee by the petitioner company on 05.08.2003 and subsequently his services were regularized as permanent employee on or from 01.09.2006 with a permanent ESI No.430069555. It is alleged on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent No.3 took leave on 10.06.2013 without making any formal application as per the procedure of the company and chose to come back
The Court ruled that termination without notice and opportunity to explain absence violated principles of natural justice, justifying reinstatement and compensation.
Termination of contractual employment does not equate to retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, limiting the right to claim reinstatement.
The court ruled that termination due to non-renewal of a contractual appointment does not qualify as retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of services was illegal and unjustified, and the principles of 'last come, first go' were not followed. The court also emphasi....
Since litigious employer has gone back and forth from this Court before the Single Judge to the Division Bench and then Supreme Court and back on two occasions rendering the workman without the fruit....
Point of Law : Upholding the validity of the action of the Bank in applying the clause 16 of the bipartite statement by noticing the employee and not holding regular departmental enquiry, the positio....
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
