Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA
Reliance Infrastructure Limited (Erstwhile Known as B.S.E.S) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The petitioners have filed the criminal writ petition challenging the order dated 09.06.2017 issued by the Additional Labour Commissioner, to grant prosecution sanction against the petitioners for disobeying the orders of the Labour Court. Petitioners have also assailed the order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby on the basis of aforesaid sanction for prosecution, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for committing offence under Section 29 read with Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947').
2. It is stated that the petitioner No.1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and was earlier known by the name of Bombay Suburban Electric Supply (B.S.E.S). It is stated that the respondent No.3-workman raised one industrial dispute before the conciliation officer raising grievance that he was employed by B.S.E.S Ltd. and when his services were illegally terminated on 12.06.1997. On account of there being no settlement before the Conciliation Officer, a failure report was submitted to the appropriate Government and ultimately,
Recognition of the limited jurisdiction for prosecuting parties under the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing enforceability of Labor Court awards against identified entities only.
Misconduct can be established outside the workplace if it brings disrepute to the management, and the Labour Court's reduction of punishment was found to be perverse.
The importance of evidence presented before the Labour Court, the limited scope of judicial review, and the impact of delay and suppression of material facts on the petition.
The termination of an employee without due process is illegal, and the burden of proof lies with the employer to substantiate claims of non-employment.
The illegal refusal of employment by the management necessitated compensation for the workman, underscoring the employer's burden to prove any contrary claims.
The appropriate government lacks jurisdiction under Section 33C(1) to issue recovery orders without prior adjudication of the workers' claims, emphasizing that such claims must arise from recognized ....
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
