IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
Basti Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the award dated 12.10.2018, passed by learned Labour Court, in terms whereof, the Reference made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court was answered as under:-
“As a sequel to my above discussion and findings on issues No. 1 and 2, the claim of the petitioner fails and is hereby dismissed with the result the reference is answered in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to record.”
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this writpetition are that in an industrial dispute raised by the petitioner, the appropriate Government made the following Reference to the learned Labour Court:-
"Whether termination of services of Shri Basti Ram S/o Late Shri Jattu Ram R/o Chiyali, P.O. Loja, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P. during March, 2008 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Renukaji Tehsil & P.O. Renukaji, District Sirmour, H.P. allegedly without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disptes Act, 1947 is legal
The court found that the termination of the petitioner was unlawful due to the retention of junior employees, violating the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Termination of services without compliance with Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act is illegal, especially when junior employees are retained.
The Labour Court's award was quashed due to insufficient evidence supporting the claimant's continuous service and failure to timely raise disputes, violating the Industrial Disputes Act.
The burden of proof lies with the claimant to demonstrate continuous employment and unjustified breaks; failure to do so results in dismissal of claims under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Termination of services without following due process under the Industrial Disputes Act is illegal, and reinstatement with seniority is warranted.
Termination of employment without notice under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is illegal if the employee has completed more than 240 days of service.
Decisions of Tribunals - Jurisdiction - While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is not to sit as Court of appeal over the decisions of Tribunals constitute....
Termination of service without notice or compensation violates the Industrial Disputes Act, establishing the workman's right to reinstatement and compensation.
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 affirmed that compliance with the Industrial Disputes Act's procedural requirements is essential for lawful termination of employment.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.