Back
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, NAVNEET KUMAR
Upendra Prasad, son of Late Narendra Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Food Corporation of India, through its General Manager (Region), son of R. S. Pandey – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Navneet Kumar, J.) :
This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 13th September 2023 passed in W.P.(L) No. 4527 of 2018 whereby and where under the writ petition filed by the respondent/ writ petitioner – The Food Corporation of India challenging the award dated 15.01.2018 has been allowed.
2. Briefly stated, the writ petitioner/ respondent-The Food Corporation of India had preferred the writ petition challenging the award dated 15th January 2018 whereby the action of the respondent – Corporation in dismissing the complainant/appellant herein - Upendra Prasad with forfeiture of post-retirement benefits including gratuity dated 30th November 2012 and the order of the appellate authority dated 1st May 2013 confirming the punishment were held to be illegal and unjustified. The respondent-Corporation was further directed to pay full back wages to the complainant/ appellant herein- Upendra Ram as well as other benefits including gratuity after effecting reduction of two increments in order to maintain parity as his co-delinquent whose case has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No. 22573 of 2015 and the directions were to be implemente
The court ruled that the appellant was not a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, affirming the Tribunal's lack of jurisdiction over the complaint.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'workmen' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and its application to determine the jurisdict....
The tribunal rightfully determined the employee's workman status and upheld its award for back wages based on justified findings, rejecting claims of res judicata and improper classification.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and its application to the case at ha....
The definition of 'Workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act excludes those in supervisory roles who exceed statutory salary limits, impacting jurisdiction over disputes.
The court ruled that a workman who performs supervisory duties and earns above the statutory salary limit does not qualify as a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, rendering the Tribunal's a....
The court determined that the tribunal misapplied the law regarding employment and erred in concluding the existence of an employer-employee relationship, necessitating the annulment of the reinstate....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 2(s)(iv) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding the definition of a 'workman' and the requirement for follow....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the contents of documents by primary evidence or secondary evidence under Sections 61 and 65 of the Evidence 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
