Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
Management, Shri Anandakumar Mills Limited, Represented by its General Manager – Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore – Respondent
ORDER :
(D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.)
This Writ petition is filed challenging the common order, dated24.11.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore in C.P.Nos.145 to 153 of 2005. By the said order, the Computation Petitions, filed by the nine workmen, who are arrayed as respondent Nos.2 to 10 herein, were partly allowed. A sum of Rs.97,925/- each to the petitioners in C.P.Nos.145, 146, 147, 150 and 152 of 2005, a sum of Rs.96,050/- to the petitioner in C.P.No.153 of 2005 and a sum of Rs.99,816.25 ps each to the petitioners in C.P.Nos.148, 149 and 151 of 2005 were ordered to be paid.
2. The claim of the workmen before the Labour Court is that they are the employees of the mill. There were 190 permanent employees, 152 badlis and 26 apprentices in the management mill, which is a Group - D mill. On 17.05.1996, the management entered into a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), in which, it agreed to accord permanency to the badlis and apprentices who had put in 45 months of continuous service. However, the settlement was not implemented. Therefore, the trade union raised a dispute. A failure report was submitted on
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.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is limited to the recovery of money due to a Workman from....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a pre-existing right and entitlement of the employees as a prerequisite for entertaining a Claim Petition under Section 33 (C....
Failure to seek approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act renders dismissal void and inoperative, as established by the Supreme Court in Jaipur Zila case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court cannot entertain claim petitions and adjudicate the merits and demerits of the rights of the workman under Section 33(C)(2) o....
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
