Back
PIYUSH AGRAWAL
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Regional Labour Commissioner Central – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Piyush Agrawal, J.
Heard Shri Praveen Kumar Srivastava, Shri Rajesh Tripathi, Shri Gaurav Kumar Chand and Shri Manu Vardhana, learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners, Shri K.M. Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State - respondent and Shri S.S.P. Gupta and Shri Devendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the private respondents.
2. Since the issue involved in the connected writ petitions are consequential to the impugned order dated 09.11.2009 (challenged in Writ C No. 7273/2010), by which the recovery proceeds under challen, therefore, the same are being decided by the common order. Writ - C No. - 7273 of 2010 is taken as a leading case for deciding the controversy involved in all the matters. The other connected writ petitions are confined to recovery amount in pursuance of the impugned order dated 09.11.2009.
Writ - C No. - 7273 of 2010
3. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.11.2009 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur, the respondent no. 1.
4. The brief facts of the case, leading to the present controversy, are that on 01.09.1986, 110 casual daily wage employees were retrenc
Entitlement to back wages is standard upon wrongful termination, subject to proof of unemployment; management's failure to regularize violated its own policies.
There may be cases where termination of a daily-wage worker is found to be illegal on the ground that it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of the principle of last come first ....
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....
Employees must actively pursue reinstatement post-award; however, employers' refusal to act can diminish employees' obligations to report for work.
The management must offer re-employment to retrenched workers at the same wages as prior to retrenchment, with wage disputes falling within the scope of industrial disputes under the Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court cannot entertain claim petitions and adjudicate the merits and demerits of the rights of the workman under Section 33(C)(2) o....
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
