Back
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA
Bureau Chief Rastriya Sahara – Appellant
Versus
Labour Commissioner U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Kshitij Shailendra, J.)
1. All these writ petitions cover certain factual and legal aspects which are common in all the matters. Therefore, while deciding these writ petitions by a common judgment, individual cases shall also be dealt with.
2. For the purposes of deciding these matters, Writ-C No.23241 of 2016 is being treated as the leading one.
3. Heard Shri Shakti Swarup Nigam, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Karshit Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Janmed Kumar, learned counsel for respondent workman in Writ-C No.23241 of 2016 and Writ-C No.23786 of 2016; Shri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ajay Rajendra, learned counsel for respondent workman in Writ-C No.22872 of 2016; and Shri Ajay Rajendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for respondents in Writ-C No.27687 of 2016.
Writ-C No.23241 of 2016
(M/S Bureau Chief Rastriya Sahara And Another Vs. Labour Commissioner U.P. And 2 Others)
4. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 09.11.2015 passed by the Labour Court (I), U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication Case No.275 of 1999, M/s Bureau Chief Rastriya
Point of Law : Court does not find any cogent reasoning in the order of the Labour Court in so far as the denial of relief of reinstatement or back-wages is concerned.
The court upheld the illegal termination of the respondents/workmen and their entitlement to reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, 194....
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....
Labour law – Reinstatement - Granting of relief of reinstatement after such a long gap will not serve any purpose and, therefore, this Court is of the view that if the order to grant compensation
Point of law :Labour Law - There is no proof that the workman has worked for 240 days and, therefore, it was held by the Labour Court that there is no proof that the workman was working continuously ....
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
