Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Chand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
1. By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioners have challenged the Award, dated 01.09.2012, passed by the Court of learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, H.P. in Reference No. 54 of 2009, titled as Ramesh Chand vs. State of H.P. & others, in terms whereof, the Reference made by the Appropriate Government, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was answered by learned Labour Court as under:-
“For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the claim of the petitioner is allowed and the reference is answered in negative as the termination of the services of thepetitioner is improper and unjustified. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service with immediate effect on the same terms and conditions with seniority and continuity along with back wages @ 25%. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in official gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to records.”
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that on an industrial dispute raised by respondent/workman, the following Reference was made by the Appropriate Government
Termination based on a preliminary inquiry without a formal inquiry is punitive and invalid under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Reinstatement following illegal termination does not guarantee back wages; compensation may be awarded based on service duration and other considerations.
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....
Termination of employment found illegal due to lack of due process; procedural adherence under the Industrial Disputes Act is mandatory, leading to reinstatement or monetary compensation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the proper procedure, particularly the retrenchment procedure as per Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly in cases of termination and retrenchment, and....
The court held that the termination of the workman was illegal as it violated mandatory retrenchment procedures, entitling him to reinstatement with full back wages.
In cases of illegal termination, reinstatement with back wages is the norm, but courts may instead award reasonable compensation based on the context of service and misconduct.
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
