Back
PIYUSH AGRAWAL
State of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Ranvir Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Piyush Agrawal, J.
Heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gopal Narain Shrivastva, learned counsel for the respondents.
The present writ petition has been filed against the award dated 18.11.1996 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Tribunl, Agra.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 was working as a daily wager in the establishment of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed to be appointed on the permanent post of peon on 14.12.1981 in the establishment of the petitioner and his services were terminated illegally for which a reference was made. But the petitioner has averred that the respondent no.2 was working as a daily wager on muster roll and was an adhoc employee having no legal right for availing salary as a regular employee as he did not continuously work for 240 days as per the provision of 2 (g) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further averred that the reference as well as the impugned order is bad in the eye of law, hence the present writ petition.
3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the respondent no.2 was a daily wager and did not work as a regular employee and impugned order directing for reinstatement along
The court emphasized that the designation of a worker does not alter their rights under employment law when evidence indicates they meet statutory qualifications for protection.
To employ workmen as “badlis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen.”
It is well settled that for an order of termination of the services of a workman to be held illegal on account of non-payment of retrenchment compensation, it is essential for the workman to establis....
Reinstatement for daily wage workers is not automatic and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, considering service duration and delay in raising disputes.
Termination without proper compliance with statutory requirements leads to reinstatement and back wages for unjustly terminated workers.
The main legal point established is that continuous work for 240 days entitles a worker to protection under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, but reinstatement may not be the appropriate ....
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
