Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
P.Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer, The Principal Labour Court, Vellore – Respondent
ORDER :
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.
These Writ Petitions are connected and as such, are taken up and disposed of by this common order. Three sets of Industrial Disputes were disposed of by three common awards. Aggrieved by which, these Writ Petitions are filed.
2. I.D.No.89 of 2003 etc., were disposed of by the common award, dated 11.06.2009 rejecting the claim of the workmen. Aggrieved by the rejection of the claim in toto, 24 workmen filed W.P.No.1748 of 2010 and another workman filed W.P.No.24861 of 2013. The second set of Industrial Disputes in I.D.No.160 of 2004 etc., were disposed of by the common award, dated 01.11.2010. By the said award, the Labour Court, while declining the relief of reinstatement with back wages, ordered compensation by directing the management to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to each of the workman who worked for less than 100 days and a sum of Rs.35,000/- to each of the workman who worked for less than 200 days and a sum of Rs.50,000/- to each of the workman who worked more than 240 days. Aggrieved by the award of compensation, the management filed W.P.No.1497 of 2013. 16 of the workmen filed W.P.No.17963 of 2012 and 15 of the workmen filed W.P.No.26293 of 201
Workers employed beyond 240 days are entitled to compensation for unfair termination under the Industrial Disputes Act, despite being classified as casual laborers.
Labour law – Reinstatement - Granting of relief of reinstatement after such a long gap will not serve any purpose and, therefore, this Court is of the view that if the order to grant compensation
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.
Termination without notice or compensation violates the Industrial Disputes Act; recognition of continuous service applies despite temporary engagement gaps.
The court confirmed the employer-employee relationship and ruled that the non-employment of workmen was unjustified, ordering compensation instead of reinstatement.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which mandates 'last come first go' principle while retrenching workmen, and the e....
Once violation of Sections 25(F), (G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act is established, reinstatement should follow, as per the decision in Gauri Shanker vs. State of Rajasthan.
There may be cases where termination of a daily-wage worker is found to be illegal on the ground that it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of the principle of last come first ....
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
