Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Hem Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vineet Pandey and Mr. Aditya Bhushan Singhal, Advocates for the Petitioner-Authority/Respondent- Authority, Sri Gopal Narain, Advocate assisted by Sri Akash Pandey, Advocate for Respondents-Workmen/Petitioners-Workmen and the learned standing counsel for the state-respondents in all the writ petitions.
2. Since common issues are involved in all the writ petitions, hence all the writ petitions are clubbed and heard together and are being decided by a common order and Writ Petition No. 38900 of 2018 shall be treated as a leading petition.
3. Brief facts of the case are that U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1976”) came into force on 1.4.1976 and Petitioner-Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “GNIDA”) was constituted under Section 3 of the Act of 1976. The services of the employees of the GNIDA are governed by the provisions of Greater Noida Service Regulations, 1993. Respondent nos. 2 to 6, as elected representatives of workmen of petitioner, moved an application under Section 2-A of the U.P. In
The Industrial Tribunal can regularize services of workmen if unfair labor practices are established, even in the absence of sanctioned posts.
The court affirmed that prolonged employment of daily wagers without regularization constitutes unfair labor practice, necessitating their regularization under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The court established that unequal treatment in employment regularization, despite available posts, constitutes an unfair labor practice under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The court upheld the Tribunal's awards for employee regularization, emphasizing the prohibition of unfair labor practices under the Industrial Disputes Act, while clarifying the need for state approv....
Long-term service in sanctioned positions can warrant regularization despite age limitations in recruitment, emphasizing continuity and eligibility for qualified employees.
The obligation of the employer to regularise the service of workmen and the prohibition against unfair labour practices under Section 25T of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
Employees engaged in irregular appointments may be entitled to regularisation if they have served continuously and their appointments were not illegal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act can only be considered a dispute if a specific demand has been made by the workmen, and any refere....
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
