Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Rajveer Son of Shri Mani Ram – Appellant
Versus
Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Dholpur – Respondent
Order :
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
1. By way of filing this writ petition, the impugned award dated 24.09.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur has been assailed by the petitioners.
2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that a common consolidated statement of claim was submitted by all the three petitioners namely Rajveer, Banay Singh and Rameshwar against their impugned termination order dated 01.01.1989 before the Labour Court with the averments that they were engaged as Beildar on 01.01.1983 and they continued on the said post till 31.12.1988 and their services were terminated on 01.01.1989 without issuing any notice and without making any payment of compensation by the respondent- Department in violation of the provisions contained under Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’). Counsel submits that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 namely Rajveer and Banya Singh have produced their evidence but the petitioner No. 3- Rameshwar could not produce his evidence, hence his evidence was closed. Counsel submits that all the petitioners have made a specific averments in the statement of claim petition that without following the due process of law a
Compensation for termination must reflect the length of service and adhere to statutory provisions, with courts having the authority to enhance inadequate awards.
Monetary compensation is preferred over reinstatement for daily wage workers whose termination is found illegal, especially after significant delays.
Compensation for unlawful termination must reflect the length of service, with the court enhancing the awarded amount to Rs.4,00,000 based on the workman's tenure.
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.
Point of Law : When the appellants could not produce any material in their favour, either before the Labour Court or before the Learned Single Judge, they are not entitled to any compensation at all,....
Termination of services found in violation of Section 25-F; reinstatement not ordered due to short service and significant delay, leading to compensation instead.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the length of service and the delay in filing the reference in determining the adequacy of compensation in cases of industrial disputes.
The court affirmed that compliance with the Industrial Disputes Act's procedural requirements is essential for lawful termination of employment.
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
