Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, SYAM KUMAR V.M., JJ
BADAGARA SAHAKARAN ASUPATHRI – Appellant
Versus
LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 18th day of December, 2025 Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated
20.09.2022 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.29536 of 2022.
Appellants were the petitioners in the W.P.(C).
2. The W.P.(C) was filed by the appellants challenging the award dated 08.04.2022 of the Labour Court, Kozhikode in ID No.15 of 2020. By the said award, the Labour Court had held that the denial of employment to the 2nd respondent workman by the appellant was unjustifiable and that the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages from the date of denial of employment till the date of reinstatement, continuity of service
The court emphasized the need for compliance with procedural norms under the Industrial Disputes Act when denying employment.
The court established that the classification of an employee as a 'workman' depends on the nature of their duties rather than their job title or designation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the employer must follow the relevant provisions of the I.D. Act before terminating the service of an employee, and failure to do so may entit....
The relief of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic, and the court has discretion to determine an apposite relief in cases of illegal termination.
The burden of proof regarding the status of an employee as a 'workman' lies with the employee, not the employer, as per the Industrial Disputes Act.
Termination of service without notice or compensation violates the Industrial Disputes Act, establishing the workman's right to reinstatement and compensation.
The court ruled that employees in managerial roles and earning above Rs.10,000 do not qualify as 'workmen' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, reversing the Labour Court's decision.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly in cases of termination and retrenchment, and....
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
Listen Article