SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2214

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
D. Sathiya Narayanan – Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:Balan Haridass, Advocate. For the Respondents:R2, G. Anand for M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co., Advocates.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records from the 1st respondent, quash the Common Award passed by the 1st respondent Labour Court in I.D. Nos.22 to 30 of 2013 dated 26.2.2014 in so far as I.D. No.22 of 2013 concerning the petitioner and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages continuity of service and all other attendant benefits with costs.)

Common Order

1. These batch of Writ Petitions raised an interesting question. The petitioners before me are the workmen and the 2nd respondent is the management. The petitioners were appointed by the management as Trainees on 28.04.2010 for a period of one year. The order of appointment is a standard feature. The relevant portions are extracted below:

APPOINTMENT AS TRAINEE

With reference to your application and the interview you had with us, we have pleasure in offering you an appointment as a TRAINEE in our factory at Nellikuppam with effect from May 3, 2010 subject to the following terms and conditions:

1. Your training will be in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top