Back
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Ashraf Kathat – Appellant
Versus
Judge Labour Court – Respondent
ORDER :
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
Since common question of law and facts are involved in both petitions, hence with the consent of counsel for the parties, both the matters taken up for final disposal and the same are being decided by this common order.
2. For convenience, the prayer mentioned in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7758/2012 is taken into consideration.
3. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-
(I) Would be pleased to call for the record and after examining the same will be further pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 16.12.2011 and the judgment/award dated 20.12.2011 passed by the labour Court Ajmer in LCR no. 18/2008 (Parasram v. RSRTC) and consequently the statement of the claim moved by the respondents workmen may be allowed in terms prayedn for.
(ii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may be granted.
(iii) cost of the petition may be quantified in favour of the petitioner."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that services of the petitioners-workmen (hereinafter referred to as 'workmen') were terminated in violation of mand
A domestic inquiry cannot be deemed fair without proper evidentiary procedures, including witness examination and cross-examination, as per the principles outlined in the Industrial Disputes Act.
The reliance on additional evidence and cross-examination to establish misconduct must be in accordance with legal propositions.
The Labour Court should decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic inquiry has violated the principles of natural justice.
Termination of a workman without following mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is invalid, necessitating reinstatement.
Writ petitions against interlocutory orders of the Labour Court are not maintainable.
The court upheld the validity of the departmental enquiry procedure, affirming the petitioner's right to challenge the termination grounds without curtailment.
Stage for interference under Section 11-A by the Tribunal is reached only when it has to consider the punishment after having accepted the finding of guilt recorded by an employer.
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to reappraise the evidence and come to its conclusion enures to it when it has to adjudicate upon the dispute referred to it in which an employer relies on the findings r....
Point of Law : Satisfaction under Section 11-A, about the guilt or otherwise of the workman concerned, is that of the Tribunal. It has to consider the evidence and come to a conclusion one way or oth....
The court ruled that an ad-hoc employee's termination does not require compliance with retrenchment provisions, and raising an industrial dispute after 16 years is impermissible due to res judicata.
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
