Back
SANJAY VASHISTH
Ms. Anita – Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J.
Instant writ petition has been filed by Ms. Anita - workwoman, by challenging award dated 16.09.2015 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Labour Court, Ambala (hereafter referred to as, 'the Labour Court'), in Reference No. 18 of 2015, whereby her claim for reinstatement in service, in terms of the reference referred to it for adjudication, under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as, 'the 1947 Act'), has been declined on the ground of barred by the 'principle of resjudicata'.
The petitioner/workwoman, being employee of respondent No. 2, i.e. the General Officer Commanding, Golden Line Canteen, Head Quarter, PH & HP (1) Sub Area, Canteen Cell, Ambala Cantt. (management), has been non-suited by holding that the claim raised by the workwoman has already been entertained by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereafter referred to as, 'the CAT'), in OA No. 822/HR/2003, titled as 'Anita v. Union of India and others, decided on 20.01.2004 (Annexure P-1), whereby oral termination order dated 21.08.2003, has been held to be as per law.
2. In brief, claim of the petitioner/workwoman is that she
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.
Point of law :Labour Law -Admittedly, the workmen in all these four petitions are civilian. They are not claiming regularization of their services. The grievances raised by all the workmen, who were ....
Labour Court has held against the workman on the basis that the documents like pay sleep, muster roll etc. are not produced. But, at this juncture, it is require to peruse the oral evidence of the wo....
The court ruled that an ad-hoc employee's termination does not require compliance with retrenchment provisions, and raising an industrial dispute after 16 years is impermissible due to res judicata.
The Labour Court's jurisdiction is limited to the terms of reference, and it may determine the issue of whether an individual is a 'workman' as defined in law within that framework.
Termination without notice or compensation violates the Industrial Disputes Act; recognition of continuous service applies despite temporary engagement gaps.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly in cases of termination and retrenchment, and....
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....
The court established that a reference made by the State Government under the UPID Act to the Labour Court regarding the dismissal of a workman is valid, and the maintainability of a special appeal i....
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
