Back
VIVEK RUSIA, BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
Shankar – Appellant
Versus
Ipca Laboratory – Respondent
ORDER
Rusia, J. -- 1. Regard being had to the similitude to the controversy involved in the present cases, with the joint request of the parties, all these petitions are finally heard and decided by this common order. Facts are being taken from Writ Petition No.5449 of 2016.
2. Petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dated 27.6.2016 passed by the President, Industrial Court Indore in various civil appeals filed by respondents. Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacturing of trucks from its unit situated at 89-A, B-90 Industrial Area, Polo Ground, Indore. The petitioner has a license under the Factories Act, 1948.
3. Laghu Udyog Majdoor Union (CITU) along with 17 workmen (hereinafter referred to as “the workmen”) raised an industrial dispute before the Industrial Court Indore under section 31(3) r/w section 61 and 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relation Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “MPIR Act”) challenging the termination as illegal and sought written statement with full back wages. According to the workmen, they were appointed by the petitioner company, but after 4 –5 years Kailash Nara
Burden of proof in employment disputes shifts to the employer once workmen establish their employment. In cases of termination, statutory compliance is critical.
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
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....
Reinstatement of workmen after illegal termination is not automatic; monetary compensation may be granted instead based on specific circumstances and legal precedents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide disputed facts under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act when there is no employer-employee relations....
The court established that without clear evidence of direct employment, claims of an employer-employee relationship under contract labour provisions cannot succeed.
In a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies the workman is bound to prove that he had been in continuous service of 240 days during twelve months preceding the order of termination; in a case whe....
The court determined that the tribunal misapplied the law regarding employment and erred in concluding the existence of an employer-employee relationship, necessitating the annulment of the reinstate....
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
