Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
MANINDER S. BHATTI
Headmaster – Appellant
Versus
Hemant Kumar Pateria – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner challenging the legality, validity and propriety of award dated 30.05.2004 passed by the Labour Court in Case No.227/2001, by which the respondent no.1 was directed to be reinstated on the post of peon with all consequential benefits as claimed by the respondent no.1.
2. The facts, as detailed in the petition reflect that the respondent/workman, had approached the Labour Court disputing termination of services. The Labour Court, vide impugned award, which is contained in Annexure-P/1, has issued direction for reinstatement of the workman as well as grant of 50% back wages.
3. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the award passed by the Labour Court is unsustainable inasmuch as the Labour Court has travelled beyond the scope of reference. It is contended by counsel that the reference which was referred to the Labour Court, did not contain any whisper regarding the grant of minimum wages yet, in operative part of the award, there is a direction to grant minimum wages to the workman. Further contention of the counsel that the workman in the present case was employed elsewhere
Termination deemed unlawful when employer fails to present evidence; reinstatement and back wages are justified under social welfare legislation.
Labour Law - Reinstatement in services – It is trite law that when termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under ....
If the petitioner perceived that any part of the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court and confirmed by this Court is yet not fully implemented, he may resort to any other remedy, that may be....
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 employer bears the burden of proving that the worker was gainfully employed during the dispute period to deny back wages; failure to provide evidence supports the worker's claim to back wages.
The Labour Court's jurisdiction under Section 33(C)(2) is limited to interpreting awards and cannot adjudicate disputed claims; a pre-existing right must be established for recovery applications.
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
