Back
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Suresh Chand Sain – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Heard.
2. The appeal arises out of order dated 30.08.2019 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, the learned Single Judge though did not interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court but has granted limited relief by enhancing amount of compensation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that once the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge were satisfied that retrenchment was illegal and in violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'), reinstatement is automatic and payment of compensation mechanism is only exception to that rule.
4. The other submission is that in any case the compensation awarded to the appellant is without consideration of the long period during which the appellant remained out of employment, therefore, the amount of compensation ought to be more than what has been awarded.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no legality in the order passed by learned Single Judge. He would submit that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is founded on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Executive Engineer Vs. Kuberbh
Reinstatement is not automatic for illegal retrenchment; monetary compensation is appropriate, especially for daily wage workers.
The main legal point established is that in cases of termination of daily-wage workers due to procedural defects, reinstatement with back wages is not automatic, and monetary compensation may be awar....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in the case of a regular employee, reinstatement has to follow once the order of termination is held illegal, and the discretion lies only in ....
Relief by way of reinstatement with backwages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescrib....
Monetary compensation, not reinstatement, is appropriate for daily wage workers upon finding illegal terminations; reinstatement is not automatic even when procedural violations are confirmed.
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 ....
The main legal point established is that in cases of illegal termination, the court may consider exceptional circumstances and order lump sum compensation instead of reinstatement, taking into accoun....
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
