IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Md. Thanveerulla Sherif – Appellant
Versus
Management of Eveready Industries India Limited – Respondent
ORDER :
A . The Petitions:
1. These two Writ Petitions challenge the same award dated 16/06/2020 made in O.P. No. 18 of 2019 by the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai. The Management and the Workman filed them and, as such, are deposed of by this Common Order.
B. The Workman’s Case:
2. The case of the workman is that the Management has been in the business of manufacturing dry cell batteries, torch lights, etc. since the year 1905. Union Carbide India Limited, which killed lakhs of people in Bhopal, was the major shareholder. ‘Eveready’ Brand Cells was a successful brand, and through its units in Guindy and Thiruvotriyur, Chennai, huge profits ran into hundreds of crores of rupees throughout. The Management had several operations throughout the country. While so, it decided to shift its operations to Assam, only to get rid of the workforce and to employ badlis and new hands in violation of all labour welfare legislations. The Office bearers of one of the Trade Unions were in collusion with the management, and taking advantage of the same, the management entered into bogus settlements, as if the workmen resigned/voluntarily retired in June 2018. Thereafter, it non-employed the petition


Non-employment of the workman found unjustified; entitlement to increased compensation established per labour law standards.
The termination of the workman was deemed unjustified and punitive, leading to an increase in compensation from Rs.2,00,000 to Rs.4,00,000 based on the nature of his duties and the stigma attached to....
The court upheld the Labour Court's finding of unjustified non-employment of workmen due to unfair labor practices, establishing the employer-employee relationship despite claims of contract labor.
The court affirmed that workmen were directly employed by management, ruling non-employment without due process illegal, and granted compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
Workers employed beyond 240 days are entitled to compensation for unfair termination under the Industrial Disputes Act, despite being classified as casual laborers.
The court confirmed the employer-employee relationship and ruled that the non-employment of workmen was unjustified, ordering compensation instead of reinstatement.
The determination of employment status depends on actual duties performed rather than mere job title, impacting the legality of termination and entitlement to backwages.
Termination of workers after union formation without adhering to mandatory procedures of the Industrial Disputes Act is unjustified, warranting compensation instead of reinstatement.
The court determined that an employment termination without proper process or evidence is unjust, emphasizing the importance of adhering to fair labor practices and recognizing the continuity of empl....
Closure of a unit justified, but retrenchment compensation must comply with statutory provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.