Back
SANJAY VASHISTH
Health & Family Welfare Department, Punjab, Chandigarh – Appellant
Versus
Gurjit Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral)
Petitioners i.e. (i) Health & Family Department, Punjab, Chandigarh through Director Health Services; (ii) Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Mansa, and; (iii) Senior Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre (PHC) Budhlada, District Mansa, being Management, have filed the present writ petition, challenging the award dated 18.05.2004 (Annexure P-5), passed by respondent No.2 - learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda, whereby, Ref. No.1/2002, under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, 'ID Act'), has been answered in favour of respondent No.1 - Gurjit Singh (workman).
2. Pleaded case of the workman is that he was employed with the Management as Class-IV employee w.e.f. 13.03.1995, and was terminated on 10.06.1995. He was drawing the wages of Rs. 1750/- per month. His services were terminated without any notice, charge-sheet, notice pay or retrenchment notice etc. Even after his termination, the other workmen, who were junior to him, namely; Sukhchain Singh, Kuljit Kaur and Major Singh, are still in service of the Management. Thus, there being violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the ID Act, and termination of his
Termination of employment without notice violates Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The central legal point established is that termination of services must comply with Section 25-F of the ID Act, and reinstatement may not automatically follow a finding of illegality.
Termination of service without notice or compensation violates the Industrial Disputes Act, establishing the workman's right to reinstatement and compensation.
The court upheld the Labour Court's decision to reinstate the workman, emphasizing the violation of statutory provisions and the need for social justice in labor relations.
The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the workman abandoned his employment rather than being wrongfully terminated, due to insufficient evidence supporting his claims.
The court held that the termination of the workman violated Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, due to the appointment of another worker after his removal.
Termination of a workman without following mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is invalid, necessitating reinstatement.
Termination of employment without following statutory provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act is illegal, warranting compensation rather than reinstatement, especially when the employee has reac....
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
