GOPALAN NAMBIYAR, T.KOCHU THOMMEN
HYDROSE HAJI – Appellant
Versus
BAVA – Respondent
1. The appeal is against the judgment of a learned judge who dismissed the appellant's writ petition to quash the order Ext. P3 of the appellate authority under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, (the Additional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ernakulam) That authority had found that the termination of service ordered by the appellant of the 1st respondent was unjustified. Having come to the conclusion, the authority found that there was no ground to order reinstatement as the relationship between the employer and the employee was rather strained, and reinstatement might only have the result of developing further disharmony with the employee. It therefore directed the appellant to pay the 1st respondent, as, of Rs. 5,740 - towards back wages for the period from 13-12-1969 (the date of termination) to 14-5-1973 (the date of the order) at Rs. 140/- per mensem. It also found that the 1st respondent was entitled to a further sun of Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation in lieu of reinstatement, and directed the appellant to pay the same to the 1st respondent. In the result, the appellant was directed to pay a total amount of Rs. 7,740/- within thirty days of t
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.