Back
DINESH MEHTA
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Sushil Kumar S/o Ghadsi Ram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DINESH MEHTA, J.
1. The order impugned in the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is, a judgment and award dated 22.07.2005 passed by the Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’).
2. The precise facts which are necessary for the present purposes are that a Reference came to be made to the Labour Court at the instance of the respondent No. 1, who claimed that he having worked for more than 240 days between 21.11.1991 to 20.10.2003 has been retrenched by an oral order without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. Said reference came to be answered in respondent No. 1-employee’s favour by the Tribunal by award dated 22.07.2005.
4. On 17.12.2008, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court admitted the petition and stayed the effect and operation of the award dated 22.07.2005, passed by the Tribunal in the above Labour Dispute Case No. 18/2005.
5. Ms. Anjana Jawa, learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court’s attention towards the factual matrix of the case and pointed out that the respondent No. 1-applicant was purportedly retrenched in the year 2003 and after 2 years ther
Monetary compensation is preferred over reinstatement for daily wage workers whose termination is found illegal, especially after significant delays.
Monetary compensation can be awarded instead of reinstatement for daily wage workers whose termination is found illegal due to procedural defects, as reinstatement is not automatic.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of workmen must comply with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, and violations of Sections 25G and 25H can lead to ....
Reinstatement of a daily wage worker is not automatic upon illegal termination; monetary compensation may be awarded instead, particularly considering the worker's age and service duration.
Retrenchment of a daily wage earner was declared illegal due to violation of section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, mandating adherence to the Last-In, First-Out principle.
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
