Back
N. SATHISH KUMAR
Casa Grande Civil Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Rep. By its Managing Director – Appellant
Versus
Moorthy – Respondent
ORDER :
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned award dated 27.02.2023 passed by the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai in O.P.No.4 of 2022 and quash the same.
The Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai in O.P.No.4 of 2022 dated 27.02.2023.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent joined the services of the petitioner company as an Office Assistant on 01.04.2011 and he was working as an Assistant Manager (Safety) when he decided to quit work from 03.04.2019 and thereafter, he did not report to the office of the petitioner. A letter was sent by the petitioner on 06.04.2019, 10. 04.2019 and 15.04.2019. The respondent though did not give any reply to the letters sent by the petitioner, raised an Industrial Dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour-III, (Conciliation), Kuralagam, Chennai-108, alleging that he was orally denied employment from 13.02.2019. The further case of the petitioner is that during the conciliation proceedings, the respondent was directed to report to duty. The responde
The burden of proof regarding the status of an employee as a 'workman' lies with the employee, not the employer, as per the Industrial Disputes Act.
The unlawful termination of service without complying with statutory procedures mandates reinstatement and full back wages for the workman under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Government reference of an industrial dispute is not subject to individual limitations under the Act, affirming workman's status despite apprenticeship.
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 ruled that employees in managerial roles and earning above Rs.10,000 do not qualify as 'workmen' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, reversing the Labour Court's decision.
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 court emphasized that an employee must establish their status as a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, and failure to provide cogent evidence can justify dismissal without a departmental....
The main legal point established is that the voluntary resignation of the workman led to the denial of relief under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Section 10 reads as reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals.
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
