Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J
DIRECTOR WOMEN AND CHIL DEVP.D – Appellant
Versus
SHRI LEELADHAR AND ORS – Respondent
Order :
1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 20.11.1999 passed by the Labour Court No.2, Jaipur in LCR No.290/1998.
2. By passing the impugned award, the Labour Court has allowed the statement of claim submitted by the respondent- workman (hereinafter referred to as “workman”) and his termination order dated 29.09.1994 has been quashed and set aside with a direction to the petitioner to reinstate him back in service along-with all service benefits treating him as continuing in service along-with payment of half backwages.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a dispute was raised by the workman with the Labour Court stating therein that he was appointed as Class-IV employee on the post of Watchman in the month of September, 1991 on daily wages of Rs.22/- and his services were terminated vide order dated 29.09.1994 without following the mandate contained under Section 25-F , G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”). Learned counsel submits that a reply to the aforesaid claim was submitted by the petitioner wherein it was specifically stated that in the month of Septem
Termination of a workman without following mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is invalid, necessitating reinstatement.
The court affirmed that compliance with the Industrial Disputes Act's procedural requirements is essential for lawful termination of employment.
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.
Termination of service without notice or compensation violates the Industrial Disputes Act, establishing the workman's right to reinstatement and compensation.
Termination of employment without notice violates Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
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.
Termination of services without compliance with Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act is illegal, especially when junior employees are retained.
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
