IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Agricultural And Processed Food Products Exports Development Authority (Apeada) – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Rep. By Secretary Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Labour And Employment, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.
An Award dated 01.10.2019 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati, in Reference Case No. 02 of 2013 is the subject matter of challenge in this petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By the aforesaid Award, the concerned Workman, respondent no.3 has been directed to be reinstated and the Management is also directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in lieu of the back wages. The Management is the petitioner, which has questioned the legality and validity of the said Award.
2. As per facts projected, the respondent no. 3-Workman was initially appointed in September 1998 in the establishment of the Management on contractual basis for different periods and the 1st period was from 06.10.1998 to 05.01.1999. The last appointment was made vide order dated 08.07.2011 for a period upto 31.12.2011. The Management has highlighted that the appointment orders were contractual in nature and there was specific clause that no right would be accrued in favour of the workman. Further clauses were there, that the contract would be rescinded automatically and the same would not confer a
Director, Institute of Management vs Smt. Pushpa Srivastava
Surendranagar District Panchayat Vs Dahyabhai Amarsinh
Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) and Ors.
Hussainbhai, Calicut Vs The Alath Factory Thezhilali Union Kozhikode and Ors.
Haryana, State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. Vs Mamni
The court ruled that termination due to non-renewal of a contractual appointment does not qualify as retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
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 upheld the illegal termination of the respondents/workmen and their entitlement to reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, 194....
In illegal termination cases involving daily-wage workers, reinstatement is not automatic; compensation and circumstances of employment should be evaluated.
there is a breach of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act and as there is a delay of 11 years in preferring the reference, instead of granting reinstatement a lump sum amount as full and final settlement wil....
Termination of a workman on a contractual basis may not constitute retrenchment if the employment is of a permanent nature, and unfair labor practices may warrant compensation instead of reinstatemen....
Daily wage worker - Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen - Quantum of compensation - Termination of service of employee by way of retrenchment without complying with requirement of giving ....
Termination of casual workers constituted illegal retrenchment under Section 25F due to failure to provide notice and compensation; reinstatement replaced with monetary compensation due to the delay ....
However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour C....
Service - There is no retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act, but, it is end of service due to contractual appointment and, therefore, Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act woul....
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.