Back
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Indian Oil Corporation Limited – Appellant
Versus
Narendra Singh Shekhawat – Respondent
ORDER :
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
Since common question of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, hence with the consent of counsel for the parties the matters are taken up for final disposal and all these petitions are decided by this common order.
2. Counsel for the petitioner/Corporation submits that the respondents were never engaged as workmen rather they were engaged as 'apprentice' and a contract of apprenticeship was executed between the parties for 11 months and during these 11 months apprenticeship training was provided to the respondents and after completion of the said period the agreement came to an end. Counsel submits that the respondents do not fall within the definition of workmen, hence the Labour Court was not having any jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition filed by the respondents. Counsel submits that as per section 18 of the APPRENTICES ACT , 1961 the provisions of labour law are not applicable. Counsel submits that several documents were submitted on the record before the Industrial Tribunal to show that the respondents were engaged as apprentice and after completion of their term of 11 months, the contract came to an end. Counsel submits that t
The central legal point established in the judgment is the non-applicability of labour laws to apprentices under the Act of 1961, which prevails over the Act of 1947 in such cases.
The designation of an employee as 'trainee' does not automatically exempt them from 'workman' classification under the Industrial Disputes Act; actual duties performed are determinative for rights an....
Government reference of an industrial dispute is not subject to individual limitations under the Act, affirming workman's status despite apprenticeship.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim may be dismissed on the grounds of estoppel and res judicata if similar grievances have been considered and dismissed in previous liti....
Section 22(1) of Apprentices Act mandates employer policy for recruiting completed apprentices but imposes no obligation for absorption or regular employment; explicit contract disclaimers prevail.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and its application to the case at ha....
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 central legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of an employee's duties, the absence of a well-defined training program, and the lack of performance appraisal are crucial facto....
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
