Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA, J
Mohd. Hussain, S/o Shri Hazi Gular Mohd., through his legal representatives- Smt. Saida Bano, (W/o Late Shri Mohd. Hussain) – Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Hussain S/o Shri Hazi Gular Mohd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. termination of services (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. leave applications (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. show cause notice (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. appeal to service tribunal (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. arguments by petitioner (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. arguments by respondent (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. court's review of evidence (Para 22) |
| 8. court's reasoning (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 9. writ petition outcome (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
Order :
1. The State has challenged the award dated 09.03.2004 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bikaner in Labour Case No. 34/2001 (titled as Mohd. Hussain vs. Chief Account Officer).
3. Pursuant to an application for leave filed by the respondent- workman, 45 days’ leave was sanctioned by the competent authority vide order dated 03.03.1980; the respondent-workman applied for extension of leave on 15.05.1980 and left India in the month of June, 1980. His leave (without pay) was sanctioned for 60 days upto 14.07.1980. The respondent-workman again applied for extension of the leave and it was sanctioned upto 15.08.1980 by way of order dated 31.07.1980.
5. The State did not extend his leave and since he did not return, a show cause no
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.
Section 10 reads as reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals.
Termination of a workman without following mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is invalid, necessitating reinstatement.
Labour Court has held against the workman on the basis that the documents like pay sleep, muster roll etc. are not produced. But, at this juncture, it is require to peruse the oral evidence of the wo....
It is settled law that for attracting applicability of Section 25-G of Act, workman is not required to prove that he had worked for a period of 240 days during 12 calendar months preceding terminatio....
Section 2-A of Act reads as dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute.
In absence of any evidence produced by the petitioner workman establishing that he had worked under the Respondent continuously for 240 days and, coupled with the fact that the industrial dispute has....
Delay in filing a reference does not preclude adjudication on merits, especially when the dispute remains alive.
Termination based on a preliminary inquiry without a formal inquiry is punitive and invalid under the Industrial Disputes Act.
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
