Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Subramanian, K. Surender, JJ
A. Duraimohan – Appellant
Versus
Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of employment regularization and supreme court decisions. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the applicability of supreme court decisions. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. court's reasoning regarding entitlement to compensation. (Para 5 , 7) |
| 4. final determination of appellant's rights based on precedent. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT :
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
The challenge is to the order of the learned Single Judge made in WP No.18140 of 2018.
2. The appellant was a temporary worker in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, after a prolonged litigation which had a chequered history, the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18.03.2015 passed an order affirming the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal directing regularisation of the services of these workers. This order was subject to Review as well as Curative Petitions. After the dismissal of the Review and the Curative Petitions, a Contempt Petitions was filed in Contempt Petition (C) No.459 of 2015 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed implementation of the judgment dated 18.03.2015. However, it modified the award relating to payment of back wages to 50%.
3. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said
Public employers must adhere to Article 14 and 16 mandates, allowing only compensation for temporary workers eligible for regularization, following Supreme Court directives.
Termination of employment found unlawful under ID Act; reinstatement not automatic; compensation awarded instead.
Employees engaged through contractors cannot be arbitrarily denied rights and benefits if recognized as direct employees by prior judicial decisions.
Monetary compensation in lieu of job regularization is affirmed for eligible employees based on past judicial directives, while regularization through verification processes is mandated for historica....
Termination of daily-wage employees lacks grounds for immediate reinstatement; instead, procedural violations prompt compensation under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Compensation in lieu of reinstatement is justified when the termination is found to be illegal and the employee is not entitled to regularization.
An appointment made de hors the rules, without proper competition among qualified persons, does not confer any right on the appointee, and directing reinstatement in cases of illegal termination woul....
The main legal point established is that in cases of illegal termination of daily-wage workers, reinstatement is not automatic, and the court may award compensation in lieu of reinstatement based on ....
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
