Back
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, SANDEEP MOUDGIL
State Bank Of India – Appellant
Versus
Lalit Joshi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sandeep Moudgil, J. - CM No.1842 LPA of 2020 in LPA No. 1156 of 2019
2. The present application under order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151of CPC is to bring on record the legal representatives of Som Dutt (since deceased), applicant-respondent no.1.
3. Heard.
4. Applicants i.e Parveen (widow), Inderprasth Mehta and Mohit Mehta (both sons), as mentioned in para 4 of the application, are impleaded as legal representatives, subject to all just exceptions.
5. The application is accordingly allowed.
6. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.
LPA No. 1135 of 2019 and LPA No. 1156 of 2019
7. Since the common questions of law and fact are involved in the two LPAs i.e LPA No.1135 of 2019, "State Bank of India versus Lalit Joshi and others" and LPA No.1156 of 2019, "State Bank of India versus Som Dutt (deceased) through LRs and others", the same are being decided by the common order, however, the facts are being taken from LPA No. 1135 of 2019 whereas the date of engagement in service as well as termination from service are identical in both appeals.
8. The appellant - State Bank of India has preferred the instant intra court appeal being aggrieved against the Award and the order date
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of employees must adhere to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the violation of statutory provisions ren....
Termination without notice or compensation violates the Industrial Disputes Act; recognition of continuous service applies despite temporary engagement gaps.
Termination of service – Retrenchment – Workman was proved to have worked continuously on daily wage basis for more than five years.
Court affirmed petitioners' entitlement to benefits under a prior settlement, emphasizing the management's unjust refusal to regularize their positions.
Non-renewal of contract does not amount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act.
The earlier ruling by the Central Administrative Tribunal was deemed a nullity due to lack of jurisdiction, allowing the workwoman's claim for reinstatement to be adjudicated afresh.
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
