Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J
Principal Bharathiya Vidyabhavan School, Perumthuruthi, Elathur P.O. – Appellant
Versus
Labour Court Kozhikode – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioners in this original petition are the Principal and the Secretary of Bharathiya Vidya Bhavan School, Kozhikode who are the Management in I.D. No.4 of 2012 before the Labour Court, Kozhikode. The 2nd respondent is the workman in the said dispute.
2. The 2nd respondent was appointed as a Gardener on probation in the school run by the Management, with effect from 01.07.2005, as per Ext. P5 order. He continued on probation without any order confirming his appointment, and his service was eventually terminated with effect from 01.04.2009 due to unsatisfactory performance.
3. The 2nd respondent raised an industrial dispute, and the Government referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court, Kozhikode, under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the I.D. Act’). The points referred for adjudication were as follows:
“1. Whether there is denial of employment to Sri. K.J. Prasannan, Gardener of Bharathiya Vidyabhavan School, Peruthuruti by the management of the institution?
2. If yes, what relief, Sri. K.J. Prasannan is entitled to?”
4. The 2nd respondent filed a claim statement and the Management filed written statemen
An employee on probation cannot be denied employment without formal confirmation; arbitrary extension of probation constitutes unfair labor practices.
The court emphasized the need for compliance with procedural norms under the Industrial Disputes Act when denying employment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of the workman's services, who had worked for over 240 days, was contrary to the provisions contained under Section 6-N of the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which mandates 'last come first go' principle while retrenching workmen, and the e....
The Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction by regularizing contract workers without sufficient evidence, emphasizing the need for proper proof of employer-employee relationships under the Industrial ....
The burden of proof regarding the status of an employee as a 'workman' lies with the employee, not the employer, as per the Industrial Disputes Act.
Labour Court has decided the preliminary issue of jurisdiction raised to the effect that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction. The Labour Court has held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the refe....
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
