Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
S. Narasimhan – Appellant
Versus
Industrial Tribunal, High Court Buildings Chennai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the employment and dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments from both workmen and management. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis and reasoning on the case. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's final ruling and compensation awarded. (Para 10) |
ORDER :
(D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.)
A.The Writ Petition:
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the common order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, dated 15.04.2004 in Complaint Nos.38,39 and 42 of 1997. By the said order, the complaints filed under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter 'the ID Act') by the three workmen were dismissed.
B.Case of the Workmen:
2. The case of the three workmen who have filed the present writ petition is that all the three workmen were originally appointed as temporary workers in the year 1985-86, thereafter they were again taken in as apprentices for a meagre salary and in the year 1987 -1989, their services were confirmed. The management floated a puppet union and forced the workmen to join the said Union. On 22.09.1992, the management alleged various misconducts against the workmen and letters were sent to 176 workmen directing them to give an undertaking that the
Termination of employment deemed punitive requires prior permission under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was not obtained, rendering the termination illegal.
The workman can invoke Section 33A of the I.D. Act only if there is a pending industrial dispute between the parties.
Termination of service without prior permission under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act is void if deemed punitive, entitling workmen to salary and benefits during the period of deemed servic....
Termination of workmen deemed punitive under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act requires prior permission, rendering any non-compliant termination void ab initio.
Termination classified as punitive requires prior approval under statutory provisions, rendering non-compliance void ab initio.
Workers can claim back wages if dismissed without statutory approval under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, as such dismissals are deemed void.
Dismissal during pendency of industrial proceedings without Section 33(2)(b) approval renders it inoperative; workman deemed continuing in service with automatic reinstatement and adjusted back wages....
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
