advocatemmmohan
Labour Court
Industrial Dispute Act – Since the claim was made after six years of termination, compensation only awarded to the workman = “Whether 18.02.86 termination of labour Shri Mohan Lal S/o Shri Dhanna Lal (Post-Mistri), who has been represented by Regional Secretary, Hind Mazdoor Sabha, Kota Cantt., from service by the Employer – Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division – Kota is legal and justifiable? If not, then applicant – labour is entitled to get what relief and compensation?”= In our opinion, interest of justice will be subserved if in lieu of reinstatement, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac) is paid by the appellant (employer) to the respondent (workman). We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made by the appellant to the respondent within six weeks from today failing which the same will carry interest @ 9% per annum. 23. The appeal is partly allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40659 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6795 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.11305 of 2006) Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota … Appellant Versus Mohan Lal …Respondent JUDGMENT R.M. LODHA, J. … Continue reading
A Daily worker on termination of his service not entitled for re-employment as of right as the termination is not amounts to retrenchment of an employee = whether termination of services of the respondent on the expiry of the contract period would amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1948 (for short “the ID Act”). = Section 2(bb) says that if the termination of the service of workman is as a result of non-renewal of the contract between the employer and the workman on its expiry of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein, the same would not constitute retrenchment.= Facts would clearly indicate that the respondent’s service was terminated on the expiry of the fixed periods mentioned in the office orders and that he had worked only for 54 days. The mere fact that the appointment orders used the expression “daily wages” does not make the appointment “Casual” because it is the substance that matters, not the form. The contract of appointment consciously entered into by the employer and the employee would, over and above the specific terms of the written agreement, indicates that the employment is short-lived and the same is liable to termination, on the fixed period mentioned in the contract of appointment.= “25G. Procedure for retrenchment.- Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman. 25H. Re- employment of retrenched workmen.- Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity 2[ to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re- employment and such retrenched workman] who offer themselves for re- employment shall have preference over other persons.”= Section 25H will apply only if the respondent establishes that there had been retrenchment. Facts will clearly indicate that there was no retrenchment under Section 2(oo) read with Section 2(bb) of the ID Act. Consequently, Section 25H would not apply to the facts of the case. Similar is the factual and legal situation in the civil appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.5387 of 2012 as well. We are sorry to note that the Labour Court, learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have not properly appreciated the factual and legal position in this case. When rights of parties are being adjudicated, needless to say, serious thoughts have to be bestowed by the Labour Court as well as the High Court. For the above-mentioned reasons we allow both the appeals, set aside the award passed by the Labour Court and confirmed by the High Court. However, there will be no order as to costs.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40563 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5498 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5387 of 2012) Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation Appellant Versus Salimbhai Umarbhai Mansuri Respondent with CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5510 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5390 of 2012) J U D G M E N … Continue reading
casual labour/daily coolie daily wages or on temporary basis. Admittedly, they were temporary workers doing the job on daily wages, as and when work was available. It is not their case that they were posted on any regular vacant posts, nor it is their case that they had gone through due process of selection. In the light of ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others, reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1991, the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that no remedy is available to the workers since they were not the workers appointed on regular vacant posts by due process of selection.” In view of the concurrent finding recorded by both the learned Single Judge and Division Bench in appeal that the appellants were temporarily appointed on daily wages as and when work was available and they were not posted on regular basis against sanctioned post, we do not find any reason and justification to interfere with the orders passed by the two courts. However, we are of the view that the direction for payment of Rs.10,000/- each to the appellants will not compensate the appellants. Hence, the appellants who approached for the conciliation after 8 to 10 years from the date of termination are entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- each whereas one of the appellants namely Rajkumar Rohitlal who has approached the Conciliation Officer within 2 to 3 years shall be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 7. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is modified to that extent. These appeals are, accordingly disposed of.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 855 OF 2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.22606 of 2007) Rajkumar S/o Rohitlal Mishra …. Appellant(s) Versus Jalagaon Municipal Corporation ….Respondent(s) With CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 861-864 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(Civil)Nos. 23708-23711 of 2007) J U D G … Continue reading
The domestic enquiry found the delinquent employee guilty of all the charges. The enquiry report was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and there is no grievance on behalf of the respondent-workman that statutory provisions/principles of natural justice have not been observed while conducting the enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service which cannot be held to be disproportionate or non-commensurate to the delinquency. The Labour Court after reconsidering the whole case came to the conclusion that the enquiry has been conducted strictly in accordance with law in a fair manner and charges have rightly been proved against the delinquent 1
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9933 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.7083 of 2010) The Divisional Controller, KSRTC …. Appellant Versus M.G. Vittal Rao …. Respondent J U D G M E N T Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been … Continue reading
The relationship of employer and workman between the appellant and the respondent – company was brought to end in terms of a voluntary retirement scheme (in short “VRS”) introduced by the management of the company in September, 2011. The appellant, however, alleged that he was made to take voluntary retirement under duress and, in reality, his removal from service was illegal and unjustified. On those allegations he
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7389 OF 2011 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.9211 OF 2010] Man Singh … Appellant Versus Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. & Another … Respondents O R D E R 1. Leave granted. 2. The relationship of employer and workman between the appellant … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 