Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
INDERJEET SINGH, ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Managing Director, The Urban Cooperative Bank Limited – Appellant
Versus
Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Instant DB Special Appeal under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 has been filed by the appellant, (hereinafter referred to as "the employer"), aggrieved from the judgment dated 10.03.2017 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.1959/2006, titled as "Managing Director, Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur".
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent No.2, an Organization of Rajasthan Cooperative Sector Employees Union submitted a demand charter to the employer on 18.02.1982 and after that services of the some of the members of Union were terminated and they were discontinued by present appellant from 01.09.1982. A dispute was raised and after failure in conciliation, a reference was made by the State Government under Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1947"), as under:
"Whether the action of the employer Managing Director, Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Nehru Bazar, in terminating the services of 30 workmen mentioned in the list was justified and correct, and if not, what relief they were entitled to?"
3. A statement of claim was filed by the respondent union on be
Reinstatement of workmen after illegal termination is not automatic; monetary compensation may be granted instead based on specific circumstances and legal precedents.
Once violation of Sections 25(F), (G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act is established, reinstatement should follow, as per the decision in Gauri Shanker vs. State of Rajasthan.
Violation of provisions under Sections 25F and 25H of the ID Act led to the direction for reinstatement without backwages.
Labour Law - Reinstatement in services – It is trite law that when termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under ....
In a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies the workman is bound to prove that he had been in continuous service of 240 days during twelve months preceding the order of termination; in a case whe....
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
