Delhi District Court
Was vs Straight on 1 October, 2008
necessary
19.Governing
and
at following
failed
clarified
Committee
Predecessor
examination,
record.
portions
observation
committed
formal
proceedings
conditions
management
no.tenor
the 2 said
"In the
Management,
It iswas
and for
enquiry
of
decided
of
The
thatvery
terms
the the
ultimately
held
cross
in
of
misconduct
of
on
amount.which
Bodywith nature
employee
such
resolution
senior
guide
to
judgment,
the
its
Hon'ble COURT
services,
08/06/2004:-
service
has
against
of
prove
that
examination
meeting
on
certain
ofthereafter of
meeting
representation
terminated
probation
reference:-
was
been
post
dispute
in
other
thethe
High
However,
the the things,
statedto
tendered
and
it
case OF
giving
although plead
,initiated,
documents
other
these
was
endorsed
alleged
management
was
Court there
MS.
officials.
the
managementconduct
period
of Iof
illegally".
the
toimplied
inhand,
kind
workmanthat
J.U.
you
period
be
referred
by am
workman cannot
SUJATA
Additional
culminating
proceedings.
an
inthe
the
the
being
ofthat he
Akhtar
abasis
examined
rules
that
order
witness was
absolutely
documents
of
and
termination
the
instead tomonth's
workman.
are
case
Vol.
as be
probation
the
court
in
has
workman
of
under:-
being not
KOHLIarendered
District
terminating
favour
onus
in
ofwas
was Vs.straight
gainfully
termination
As University
Sh.
Ifornotice unaware
aconfirming
never Management
&
finding
reproduced
regards
that
to
exhibit
order
Iwas
adjudication.
was
V.K.
ofdo
prove
was the jaclet
Sessions
w.e.f.
went
not
of employed
aprobation
the
Nayyar,
of
as
the
impugned
workman.
order
being
long
the formula
Judge
Non-Academic
theguilt;
Ex.
the hereunder:-
proceedings
exceptional
appointing
had
period
CW1/X1.
extended
that from
ofwould
Section
workman, M/s
never
order for
the
of
the date of relief
awarding his termination----.
through
ofabout
PRESIDING 26.3.2001
administrative extended
remember
back methis wages. soin called
atOFFICER
any
head. view
as stage.
more.
Allto Itofrelevant
your
Presiding
isLABOUR
when It isunsatisfactory
wrong
meeting. Officer
wrong
to
the suggest
considerations
The COURT date
to Labour
suggest
resolution work
II,Court-II,
that
the Iwill enter the
service
circumstances
Markfed and Agro the time
would
reported andelapsed
be on
as after
the
2006
dereliction his
employer.
VIII oftermination
AD However,
(Delhi)
duty, despite
Karkardooma was
33, smaller
in
the Kendriya
Hon'ble
repeated
Courts, in comparison,
Vidyalya
Delhi High
7. before
1.because authority Officer Statement was appear order been Employees verdict. ISSUE To Copy What terminatednot produced Workman ofwhat the to More(Admn.) of No.termination stigmatic of ROOMemerges and at Establishment behis were letter relief, page that am or innocuous work 1(Relief) his the by claims as produced deposing dated 1 I the if grievance from "It upon letter "Whether less service NO.
tendered MW1 of being am itof any, Maximum management the is21/04/99, service would 48, to the deposing this, itself, Committee dated is correct register on unsatisfactory on falsely be the the immediately pleadings his be KARKARDOOMA committee Hon'ble the entitled would the workman 24/04/01 affidavit period Ex.
that next is services by the management a on falsely. on same Ex.
it motion WW1/M1.
be ground never its Supreme and I date, to of CW1/1.
on receipt and was held entitled would own was Ex.
probation reinstatement the Vol.
Sh. only saw addressednotMW1/A. of stigmatic. appointed nor issued over constituted. Court be light because I sympathy. Roshan at of COURTS, against a they am photocopy vitiated all period toof thisthestageinobserved a Besides, were evidence day.
Lal the the with his as There this saidvery DELHI is I if a management work called I regard discretionof continuity in isletter, may he that minutes led effect was tendered upon also by it to ofgood without was and the by be of thein On 'What is alternative warnings, employment?, as of recorded infather yourwhile it was the view earlier that fullterms back Tribunal. Sanghtan Court has ofwagesreference?
Full Vs. held responsible back am S.C. could that S/o being two remember wages not Sharma, in OPW.
be Sh.awarded. Probationer.....
taken such years would supporting Chhote person 2005 on cases, beof two any LLR record and theIt Lal However, the normal one. is member and275, R/o compensation Irule correct workman beingam ifpersonal while A-106, of only the of andEX Delhi.
that senior the file. denying New grievance workman as Iparty CW1/X1.
emphasising cannot per wasIPS has beobjecting thatbeen less thatto than inthe ita
2. Copy of memo dated 05/08/99, Ex. WW1/M2.
23.
35. must only
37. service as workman surprising substance cases the Grievance claimed Arguments The following workman where aestablish regular assigning and entireitas anywhich as Committee byfull is REINSTATEMENT/BACKWAGESthe and or the documents well the found Officer. the Seelampur, documents were Iback hisorder workman. allegations was University committee working asA/R circumstances substantial reason false have to heard wages videthe were be dulyIin ex-facie document seen and am Delhi stigmatic i.e management at evidence:-
as produced asreceived Ex.
no norms gainful termination the not involved length named well astatement was doubt WW1/M2, necessitating of haveaware Probationer as inand .:stigmatic as all but employment the nature.
by Ld. Imoral letter itself rules.
Amar other notbeen proceed him ARthe dated management.
shown as Ex.
the terminated Itturpitude is to consequential at and for Nath but was MW1/1, to that original. the workman departure". would also 26/03/01. to whether decide he further Sharma, betime the bepunitive.
is on Ex.
management Matter alleged the of held considered dated the also benefits.MW1/2
claim part that could was Since to even toon ofIt again & have had has denythe 3, if short back term wages heemployment would Withotherwise or regards, I.D. was be No. appointed entitled 223/03to. without following the proper relief
2.
3. of back Whether Copy wages of extension the is illegally services Mohand at termination the discretion and, or of the unjustifiably court, it bywas theheld that it was for claimant At letter Shri atofpage service this workman dated Chaman Chand.
stage ofwas my 14/03/2000, 1this services.
terminated Lal These terminated register Hawaldar two Ex.
isIt directed legally is or WW1/M3.
person correct aboutisIbeing still to that
(s) thebea probationer? back wages The principle to the20.4.01 was Sd/-emphatically workman, management, it has and of beenif this restated so, heldregister to Gujarat in now, what and in sum Steel North state of Tubes Est Karnatka Ltd. Vs.
10.
1. procedure
4. the been suppressed OPM.
basis terminated order the delinquent very adjourned Ex. It Copies WW1/M4, claimant/workman well prayed of was is According employee The etc., material further rulefounded called for the official. this toof accordingly. awardproduction services Ex.
tomaterial reasons sealed show ofthat complaints upon on stated the working were civildocuments on MW1/4, ofThe record, the full the of came workman, back that same language representatives fact.
on ground the back of therefor. law he in management Ex.
in an was also behalf dated original workman to Ex.
that notthe the wages WW1/M5, theknow that used envelope. not a of light WW1/M1 college of 07/03/2000, appellant minutes could Grievance in because at of management to Grievance gainfully containing contract thethe arguments aproduce Ex.
and not later to order workman. of WW1/M6, had of be Ex.
the Committee employed of my the stage personalhis 01/05/2000, proper.
failed ofWW1/M3 the Principal addressed Grievance that alleged Committeetermination signatures same the afterThe in Ex.
wason servicethe real misconduct.
his MW1/5and 26/03/01 performance on 29/05/2000, Committee. object of there constituted behalf service termination. cannot to wasand Ex.
the of in be Date
4. of Copy Institution Keeping 38.19/02/01, of written inMW1/1view of Yours the the case explanation sincerely, facts and :
the 02/04/03 circumstances workman dated of token this case, 22/06/2000, workman is Ex. Gujarat Road Steel Trasporation Ex.Tubes Meeting money Smt. workman bear XXXXxx Vs. to Mazdoormay my Ex.
M. ashave Aruna by monetary signature MW1/4.
was Sabha Sitesh Ld. Nagangauda, taken not AR atare (AIR for relief point heard place, still 1980, workman. 2007 I Acan SCalongwith working before in LLR 1896), not 340 say,the inof in that I the following even self Date The WW1/M4.In U.P. on initial which onus State any Judgment has Brasswarewhere.
therefore, was now I am Corporation reserved shifted nottoaware theVs.workman. Udaiof : any Narain 23/08/08 suchPandey, 2006 specifically
8. MW1/12.
13.
26. Governing both of purport may gross Management his Management, It Theex-facie parties.
negligence is duties for enforced, offer denied andBody which administratively be My then most ofthat stigmatic.
had
in does
consequential findings appointment inon college. Grievance the having handling ofmanagement Nil. also their the not termination the next met on Opportunity limit receipt documents The W/s, Itthis and issue Committee to date is the benefit language letter see has aspect. jurisdiction technically. correct thereof.... ever order no.
produced the 1inagreed raised Ex.
of given". terms performance would used the was But that only WW1/2,management certain since the It issued, isof thereunder Reference workman be of representative to original the existing dependent withdraw correct documents clause labour preliminary of he two could was may was register clearly that 5,Security the on thencourts. also inprovides challenge my termination question objections; reflect containing had show It findings Guards was tothat the i.e gross violation was of not statement. principles present The of nor natural aware.
said justice.
statement Management is Thebeing college mayEX Karamchari Date words:
employment
18.
2.
5. on awarded which Judgment which reinstatement would laws/Government was fetch with pronounced any continuity earning notifications of: duty 01/10/08 to service and the to WW1 employee, and what with 50% including back alwaysCopy LLR During 214, It came of the understood evidence, memo Hon'ble to have be issued dated Chokidar of documents (Dr. that workman the Supreme reiterated written Aruna when 20/02/01, to theand workman time Ex.
workman examined Court Sitesh) namesan CW1/Y1. I was Sr. Administrative Officer at mostly Ex.
and order of WW1/M4 WW1/M5. considered anyagain of his were dated himself that was retrenchment members, 02/03/01, heard.
hours various grantaswritten what of were Ex.
The previousby onMW1/5. reinstatement has can been his affidavit judgments declared and firstly including letter on workman same there proceedings minutes it casewas Union issuewas thereafter. ofdated trying that "Traveling of no.
shall something themeeting Deepati (DUCKU) 26/03/01.
workman happened to2,claimant be level as over other The onat proceedings me framed Prakash serious over night.
the protested relief probation and foundation to was As and samebe and showing the by regards IPremjeet it charges aagainstif directly cannot above my was Principal ground he probationer for ofofLd. the one the decided of the say the the entitled relevant Grievance year Predecessor. misconduct demand Vs. by attendance order assertion that and going and tothe Satender termination to same having and terminate that notice his Principal the that Committee through againstwhat ofifbear entire services As been the his the dated Nath notice such, the work officer everymy the of members disclosed controversy 27/07/01 andservice Boss workman were Iprecedent isproceed was not demandedvalidly by of found National also, and the to is agricultural
6.
B E T Copy
W E pursuits
of
E N I
memo say
the would Principal"
when dated relevant beI 01/03/01,included was time noti.e Ex.in in there 'gainful WW1/M6.
the in
year the employment'.
meeting. 2001 and now It isI rendered back 'illegal',
3. wages Ex. CopyWW1/Athe by was same it of extension and aandismatter concluded supposed directions besides the are signature of letter still college discretion are helying to tendered given atSmt. that be void necessary point inby the there of Aruna the ab-initio following workman was labour in Sitesh this no and respect?".court binding hence, and that precedent inoperative; the order that of the wages.
supererogatory and wrong am we retired. to hold suggest the rule that I isA.office am simple It of deposing isdated documents the correct thatused college.
20/03/01, thetothat falsely.
take inItevidence:-
discretion I Ex. MW1/6.
I to deny
7. Thus, terminated claimant management decide satisfactory, appellant unsuitable since meeting. insteadCopy they issue of by offrom in The holding for were bycomplaint that giving no.
probation claims the the said the 2 case stated position Appointing prior job.
a work is have one register detailed at to correct dated can to month's to Above a received have from later be issue be was of 15/03/01, enquiry the extended Authority, that stage fourth repliedreinstatement mentioned no.
notice directed very document 1. proceeding the therein class basis in also to byoriginal during view to tests, the one Ex.
of be employees and Ex. of more and termination same retained WW1/6.
the however, order of giving his WW1/M5. back probation grievance year.
unsatisfactory vide wasat an on If arewages her held opportunity their order, record during It period not to being letter it exhaustive be till work that was and vitiated further to dated the year, also that and the
33.
the result In is contrast reinstatement consideration
28.Centre SEE labour thatfor :court or the and Basicofto (1) pare shouldthis, the employeefull case Sciences; V.P. document down back show by Ahuja the would wages Grievance AIR Ex.
Vs. 1999 quantum applicationbe CW1/X State deemedshould Committee SCofof of 983,which back mind to always Punjab;be on isthis which wages wherein the continuing be (2000) alleged was is the granted point.absent not 3 entire in SCCminutes when existing save (Hindustan servicecase 239 of for law andat-a The Workman, have Sh. (Atseen Roshan this stage the Lal Ld. statement S/o AR Sh. for on management Chhote page Lal already R/oSh. A-106, New
1.
4.
39. exceptional automatic Interview Copy Reference of memo reasons." consequence call letter is answered dated hone committee is correct ofdated aand 21/03/01 that she 19/03/99, hasIused accordingly. retrenchment issued have not to Ex.
received been tocollect Award being WW1/1.
thefoundfiled.
workman, isthe false passed. document I report illegal, have ExMW1/7. Copy we of have thecome awarda termination Seelampur, therefore, the is Delhi. Rajeev EXCW1/Y1 held grant to of be theDayal illegal. relief andseeks ofIt it was permission may held reinstatement be so that to that a and cross personsit full may examine back is have notwages entitled alongwithto get Motors
2.
21.ISSUE management dereliction 24/08/01. his in incumbent orders.
workman thatlaw.
the In work Ltd. Pursuant Vs. to the Tapanreference, Kumar claim was reported filed asby (2002 the workman6was SCC, stating41; Indian therein the held with -said the alleged time. This a is No. respect to course case.
upon of not be court isduty 2Grievance Thereafter, probationer to this been heard, very afound the The ofagainst deposed Ex.
thendespite management arguments, language well the probationer witness.
in my
the
satisfactory, directed WW1/M6 Committee like management IVwithin with various management class temporary Allowed. hand used hadSh.
the but itto its and R.S. employees the regard warnings in have Meeting been ) still right impugned came found services the Vashisth, selected servant do come reviewedtoto same held not up the and necessary terminate who up three is know with can order allegations on Secretary opportunities bywith bear also used bethe 20/04/01 members the in the terminated by the termination my to entitled found Hon'ble what proceedings to this service be at from granted court toexamined to 10.30 on thebe Supreme of order certainthat one ex-
on its am unitto long
2.
5. be way Then Appointment Copy sent to to inaappropriate of position Mohanlal letter letter written refused against where signature datedVs. bywork government theaward Bharat the 12/04/99, at wouldpoint workman workman of atlawful her for full Electronics, A.....
Ex. home back dated WW1/2.
publication on Itdoisand thewages 23/03/01, correct1981 ultimately basis within has (3) that Ex.
30 actually of SCC, IMW1/8.
days from become
215, the
the
something all benefits Railway Construction only of because continuous XXXXXXX it would service Co.this Vs. meeting be Ajay by Sh. Kumarbe to automatic. Rajeev reported so.
Dayal, It was asLd. also (2003) acknowledged AR 4 SCC, 579; A ND that he was connection employed with the management was held.
since It
April is correct
1999 as aany Chowkidar
14.
24. employees him.
Grievance month's facie their as simply (3) shows of rare. CW1.
The the stigmatic.
The own Although protection Court principle Sh.tried claim notice.
college and of In R.S.
-it Jaswant Committee Principal and during His wasto ofand the reinstatement since make the used Vashisth, burden services that observed itSingh records/complaint. was workman who probation proceedings itwith appointed to would look was Secretary selected of cannot that full case terminate that like also have proving the beperiod, back should he by-termination as persons theis terminated said been their itthe being this wages unemployed Appointing have Iis without signed decision the Principal services have when one issue was beenbest simplicitor of an arbitrarily fully againhas assigning placed personal thealso piece on Authority of agreement been the stands very members coveredor reiteratedthe on ofon cast punitive record theevidence account denied serviceissued present thereby upon said reason byafter without although and the of in in the case it that ever In since Hindustan for that management KendriyaITin understand Works Vidalaya English Vs. Its very Sangthan employees well. (supra), Some reported body the as onus 1979 to (2) prove SCC
3.
6. M.P.receiptAppointment Copy State of ofElectricitycomplaint letter basis knowledge College.....
datedof false 11/03/01, 21/04/99, ofIt the award. Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141;report.
is the correct allegation Ex. MW1/9.
WW1/3.
that I mentioned
had also filedin
was The
noticed concept
that must
some of Ihave
ofknow
back the Roshangoes
approached wages earlier Lal alongwith judgments claimant, me for had workman assistance reinstatement indicated who thatfor since aearning labour itspeak was court
27.
29.
32. The and his whatsoever. termination it management possession workman is The In However, Managements, prescribed the meeting. management last specifically the termination being present of drawn letter.
Secondly, management. on most probation Documents as were onpleaded per its case the
(i)wages civil probation. letter surprising agreed orderown The also complaint. M/s reference suit period of that dated ofto were or since Toworkman Indraagainst workman the management mywithdraw was Ld.@ withhold is 26/03/01 Rs.
admittedly isthe workman It also Prastha my over, Predecessor the 4705/- testimony is is such made Ex.
representative arecorrect termination. gainfully the WW1/4 should kind College that to absolutely termination per workman a of that dated of month.
civil employed court reads for dischargeevidence have all suit was It the Women, false 08/06/04.
letter was as He witness called is already and under:-
did on order and claims probation, not upon Sh.filed through fabricated. However, also that more making agreedR.S. the by inits unemployment 80, complying as well.
the normal withhad is writing shifted the rule present principles to a kind togrant in thecourt.
of workman.
of a natural reinstatement draft He and justice was I just an with - Termination employee helped full him back of by order wages stating was UP
4.
7.
40. State In Textile Termination Copy view of be Corporation performanceletter ofcontinuation the participating complaints wrong dated false report toand Vs. 26/03/01, suggest ofP.C. against in the fabricated that Chaturvedi Ex.
workman, grievance the I WW1/4.
was workman documents reported negligent Ex. committee.
MW1/10.
were in as in(2005) my filed/tendered 8,bySCC, the Principal, considered after weighing Sham to all Nath the facts Marg, and of Delhi-54 the circumstances, service (ii) M/s itself.
may Indra However, award Prasthathe compensation latest College trend in lieu isfor Then once management.
writing
again it
in downJ.K. but I
SyntheticsI am was notaware Vs. concerned K.P. that Agarwal he about wasthe s. reported as
11.
36. during than management the well Vashisth, It The workman acknowledged
34. order for Rs.
allegations Women to view Since isthe entire the ofthrough5000/-course Executive terminating further the credibility to onpending against theof Secretary its "denied background per place his However, respect duties, month.
Screening basis Chairman the in his ofon him, employment, thethe same therefore, service of by of of himself the was March concerned management. night facts Grievances the he on isrecord previous passed.
Governingwho he clearly management Iduties no was 26, was court is never 2001 doubtbut not who not suggests except inof judgments. gave neither confirmed". Surrounding shown Body, stigmatic has thetopresent Shamtothat oneany himself Civil that having be cause there and ItNath in wasJudge present its failed isfor inadministratively been Iobserved circumstances present effect Marg, atin complaint case to no done, Tis stand and the Hazari Office is said that Delhi-54. this not the by also if thatissue
211).
(2) the the another appellant In settled Meru Chowkidar. meeting letter law Yuva "failed as tointhe Kendra such.
the
I point,
am workman performance I can the Sangathan not not burden awaresay Vs. of supersession his name prove Mehboob about duties of that any such oftermination Alam the earlier Lasker; of that
5.
8. even of management reinstatement Letter Copy reinstatement ofdatedagendaand back Sh.
24/04/01 appropriate ofis establishment was being wages.
Roshan meeting performing from Lal, proceedings replaced dated management committee.
my by separately 26/03/01, duties are thein compensation.
upholding Ex.dayMW1/11. times.
being the termination, In M/s against initiated Lords Ex.
2007after a LLR protracted 358, time misconducts person the and Chowkidar Hon'ble as Ihe energy doalleged Supreme consuming not worked even tothe have remember Court litigation been has what noticed during committedactually which the previous period the
15.to
25.
31. the Courts.
Establishment court same the one showing meeting serviceAs MW1, Then management However, document. of could called termination regards On Sh.
came
that
has not
for General V.K. Committee leaving this conciliation Statement discharge denied have and production of Nayyar Vol.
ground service It been havingwasHaryana aside isTherehad existing of was wrong passed proceedings also, not simplicitor of CW1 ever theSection isthe based Roadways in the no to technical is without attended sincerely, Grievance suggest being rules present Officer solely statutes/rules but also, Vs. holding for reproduced the on any aspects that management in claim an diligently Rudhan including order Committee the such Hawaldar an management. of and is assessmentis enquiry the hereunder absolutely meeting. stated of and Singh considering University. claims proceedings of punctually.
and to (2005), Relevant for punitive to begiving appellant's The have easy It entirenot theis5 in A and WA Homeopathic (2008) R was technically"
Thereafter, termination 2D SCC illegal letter.both Laboratories must by the 479,- and/or Besides the However, it have saidletter above was unjustified Vs. Roshan theno heldreliefs Ms. happened.affidavit such that Lal would Lissyofwithdrawal athe only always filed reinstatement Unnikunju in the Being lie in letterHigh eventupon and Court was reported senior of theissued back workman as and wages 2006 unsatisfactory inhave by IV,as the
9. the WW1/5.
workman judgments Copy just management of sustains and termination has Indraprastha workman Chaman concludedhimself, officials Lal i.ethat College datedrepresentative ultimately Sh. and award V.K. for 26/03/01, Principal ofany Women, Nayyar, is back topoint Ex.didbe inMW1/12.
wages Section not toldof College time.
appear that isOfficer becoming It (Admn.), though herare.willDr. To be SCC,However, undergone 591. The administrative is management avide Hon'ble progressive Shamnath correct Courtthat never dilution. officer, listed Marg, Ms. a Aruna appreciated In it few was Surender factors Siteshmy his duty on was Kumar performance which to help Principal Verma the orat award Vs. any of Central point back of AD maintainable. also duly original portions opportunity documents reference:-
and work stigmatic.
participated denied (Delhi), proceedings it is Supreme andof the his to to 739, conduct workman Court that becross the broughtorder As alsoabsolutely inworkman theGoverning in an the examination such, during who sheet illegal witness Hon'ble by indicated said the termination comes necessary to proceedings dated Committee body.
probation bebox High management would to background heard 08/05/2000. court for
-There Court ofread inbetter andservice had the his Termination are and only ofasthey is defence. under:-
been and reasons noof Delhi rendered it the is had For just he rule the constituted. held has appellant also Itdecision the false who that workman for iscited
-filed not same and asserts was only Stigmatic of their aroundreasons, the All without areply fabricated that case the and 20 his management quote reinstated,from he performance the will and judgment:
by guide they thebe Delhi. remained denied employee, other back officials. thesilent.wages termination It is which correct of thatwould probation there bewere due would toterminated him, have beenthe
6.
10. Aruna wages Copy could ofbeletter Sitesh, of Principal/Chairman demand based. college dated grievance complaints notice Some inof 24/04/01, 2001.
dated committee against these 27/07/01, Ex. (at factors MW1/13.
& workman this Sh. Ex.stage in are: the WW1/6.
R.D. witness false andisAdministration areuniversity Verma, Govt.
1. judgments Industrial Reference of the wasTribunal, Supreme officials sent by senior 1981 Sh.
Court to R.K. (1) me SCR, Verma, andinDelhi 2001 789, Secretary High i.e itVicewasCourt Labour, held that to The Principal, Government conclude there may that be of in
9. time.
allegations dated management where and holding workman record.In in 10/07/02 their "Coming punitive. termination
- Held no order
- any would It enquiry Held made stands Order hasconfronted reply enquiry to was stating arrive "(Sealed back be
- by on the been on also was "It rules.
they quite the the merits, into at wages subjected test done face with therein is held directed workman thecorrect the know Consisting envelope and even governing well to original truth it charges illegally of their is ato no admitted ifthat of regarding produce sort explained it was the of opportunity stand.
the ofcontaining is ofas six court termination and EX complaint absolutely matter, perthat penalty then unjustifiably stigmatic WW-
service persons, stigma findsparaworkman was thatof and it for 1/M6). management therules violative being clause given that two register necessary no-fault probation management and punitive of from was casted asto the onits of suchthe was is
- appointed oftoemployees provisions no upon workman it Hon'ble directed award his and longer avoided is hehim as back it who High i.e or of to resisa to
5. heldOn to1. 27/07/01, beNature justified.
Principal, workman of Dear Sh.
However, employmentVersor sentetc.
Roshan a (whether when demand Lal,It the is notice foundation obvious permanent videfor that Registered there or such was temporary an order ADorPost isshortas not
7. Incharge
11. wages, exceptional suitable A.D. Copythe cases Card, of question signatures areply circumstances in Ex.
accordance containing compensationdated WW1/7.
(one) the workman will side be at 24/08/01 where with point ofwhether pages of law.
should anA appointment arethe false.
to are 1management, to back order be 3only thegranted demand Itof is letter wages initials isopenedwrong dated reinstatement in three notice, should lieu and atto21/04/99, from this of not suggest Ex.
beandstage the the MW1/14.
awarded reinstatement. full backfully wages or wholly NCT, Delhi undeserved.
term on 21/02/03 governing daily It wage was vide body stated basis reference of etc.) that trustees. any other view No. F.24(3641)/2002-Lab./25991-96 I can not would say be placing a
3. I.D.
16. onlyprobationer that University be produce heard, Workman he Act partially integra. examine has to was as the When any prove itRules.
well not is (and further full but, said filed otheralso agiven and thisas signatures Grievance however, the side that ifThis so, disciplinary officer and states principles abe CW any rejoinder case workman of proceedings 1not the of that of opportunity the where is itshown he Ms. Committee of workman denying stands natural percentage). enquiry the the was had management other Aruna management the ofisof joined appointed and justice denied grievance the being register). That initiated way Sitesh Proceedings stand the the heard also has as round. management Principal that depends on usually no-one taken Icommittee come probation the shownhave also histhrough Itcasebystand up upon premise can and asseenput performance cannot thewith be being on denied.
the 21/04/99 management aTermination that condemned becompetent absolutely facts there present for was andare in the may Court well an be was asimpossible Although UPC, unsatisfactory held but there whether to same performance or are wrong is evoked inequitable there various towas in inform noon holding reply e.g., recent any the you from part when it that judgments specific ofas the the non-stigmatic the legal your management.
employee industry of the advisor might for Hon'ble of -but have overt closed Supreme acts
2. Method while of selection and employment.
8.
12. premium Postal Copy Fileon circumstances beof receipt, an postal of theEx. unwarranted cosigned the have tomarking receipt, for one minutes each WW1/8. confirmation one recordSecretary not case, Exyear ofbeen litigative the MW1/15.
Grievance any room. from was post.
filed who activity income 26/04/99.
placed intentionally Committee preside ofbefore received the (Ld.Itemployer.
is over by AR Meetings the correct as the theOffice for employee during pertaining 3. to Length an the Industrial ofmanagement service. Dispute or not.between It has the been management very long of M/s Indra
12.
22. the downon Court the probation satisfactory. and false officer unheardIt The reiterating relevant serious orand is granting meeting, management and minutes further and manipulated might period allegations till management management which toin the be small even 25/04/01. According stated of pasted show contents that meeting. workman meeting on of in has amount though that documents.
what
vide
account
in was
misconduct severe that Establishment theto theHis is termination of in It was also has of they probation directed management, the is letter of register correct happened financialclaim not original directed onalternative compensation were termination Committee at the to dated presented of as that page part period place service register being to doldrums admittedly in he wasever on 2 of the 14/03/2000, employment and ranging legal 26/03/2001.was representative produce theusedthere true of present were or stillthe to extended original I state and the and delinquentbe that tendered on claimant/probationer where from in and justifiedcorrect.
service case.
the frequently the of or the Rs. from serviceTermination through business officer rules time concerned 10,000/- but absent andof of isis itillegalSh.to the hisa to the for
6. order amounting could not Workman However,4. Time to time. have claims the misconduct, elapsed been to same There after bepassed unemployment judgment, an may his without opportunity have termination.
holding deviation been. of It a hearing is regular since from wrong date this to enquiry to of rule the hissince was employee the also
9. Announced
20. relevant UPC, Besides, factor Ex. record in management WW1/9.
to
the be
itopen takenin isproceedings probation the thenote workman certainly court course also period were ofnot ofcontaining confronted are while the included biased. day). ofawardingthethe ItImy inworkman theam workman, notwages, is signatures back grievance wrong aware was during to in addition his cross to Prastha employee 25,000/-, none College would of have these suggest for Women secured judgments that for anthe and employment lay its down reason workman any that else formula there Sh.
where.
were or Roshan By guidelines other the Lal, very to in the tone arrive
17.
30. time. from was R.S. employees, of recognized Today the service On During referred on several explanation management the workman Workman Vashisth, dutythe and of 01/10/2008 itabout course and basis all to factorsthe thereSecretary and tothe otherwise was anythis ofof The show requested workman contents extended committee suggest duly thefinal vide observed mentioned uponwhere even pleadings, constituted who has committee that of arguments, also is order that for that otherwise for was held been thereof. it inEX hisone was confirmation MW-
examined dated workman order following to work Grievance Rudhan year.
itwas be rejected, decided I could not 1/M6.
transpired illegal 08/05/08.
was
tonot
legal It
as
Singh
toissues prove have not services Committee is CW1 as pursuant and of Vol.
correct that hisBeing satisfactory. well terminate present been were effective (supra).with While job, Grievance as justified. were framed that and respect thereto in at unjustified. any summoned the however, the Therefore, your TheaItCommittee by terms to Grievance isrelevant full the my further by Issuethe itsaid and Ld. scale is the order termination. was concerned is senior stigmatic Conciliation imperative. -
officers Departmental proceedings In to other me,(SUJATAwords, there was enquiry had also ifKOHLI) the no need was been employee necessary.
initiated for meistofound to have but While same the also necessary
19.Governing and at following failed clarified Committee Predecessor examination, record.
portions observation committed formal proceedings conditions management no.tenor the "In the Management, It 2 said iswas and for enquiry of decided of The thatvery terms the the ultimately held cross in of misconduct of on amount.which Bodywith nature employee such resolution senior guide to judgment, the its Hon'ble services, 08/06/2004:-
service has against of prove that examination meeting on certain ofthereafter of meeting representation terminated probation reference:-
was been post dispute in other thethe High However, the the things, statedto tendered and it case giving although plead ,initiated, documents other these was endorsed alleged management was Court there officials. the managementconduct period of Iof illegally". the toimplied inhand, kind workmanthat J.U. period be you referred by am workman cannot culminating proceedings. an inthe the the being ofthat he AdditionalAkhtar abasis examined rules that order instead was absolutely tomonth's witness documents of and termination the workman. are case Vol.
as be probation the court in has workman of not under:-
being arendered District Vs. terminating favour onus in ofwas was straight gainfully notice termination As University Sh.
Ifor unaware aconfirming never Management & finding reproduced regards that to exhibit order Iwas adjudication. was V.K. ofdo prove was the jaclet Sessions w.e.f.
went not of employed aprobation the Nayyar, of as the impugned workman. order being long the formula Judge Non-Academic theguilt; Ex.
the hereunder:-
proceedingsofwould exceptional appointing had period CW1/X1.
extended that Section workman, from M/s never order for the of the date of relief awarding his termination----.
through ofabout 26.3.2001 administrative extended remember back methis atso wages. in called any head. view as stage. more.
Allto Itofrelevant is your Presiding when It isunsatisfactory wrong meeting. Officer wrong to the suggest considerations The date to Labour suggest resolution work theCourt-II, that Iwill enter the service circumstances Markfed and Agro the time would reported andelapsed be on as after the 2006 dereliction his employer. VIII oftermination AD However, (Delhi) duty, despite Karkardooma was 33, insmaller the Kendriya Hon'ble repeated Courts, in comparison, Vidyalya Delhi High
7. before
1. because authority Officer Statement was appear order been Employees verdict.
ISSUE To Copy What terminatednot produced Workman ofwhat the to (Admn.) Moreof termination stigmatic of emerges No. hisand at Establishment behis were letter relief, page that am or innocuous work 1(Relief)the by claims as produced deposing dated 1 I the if grievance from "It upon letter "Whether less MW1 of being am itof any, Maximum management the is21/04/99, service would service immediately tendered to the deposing this, itself, Committee dated is correct register on unsatisfactory on falsely be the thepleadings his becommittee Hon'ble the entitled would the workman 24/04/01 affidavit period Ex.
that next is services by the management a on falsely. on same Ex.
it motion WW1/M1.
be ground never its Supreme and I date, to of CW1/1.
and was held entitled would own was Ex.
on receiptat ofprobation reinstatement the Vol.
Sh. only saw addressednot MW1/A. of stigmatic. appointed nor issued over constituted. Court be light because I sympathy. Roshanagainst a they am photocopy vitiated all period to thisthestageof inobserved a Besides, were evidence day.
Lal the the with his as There this very is I if a management work called I regard discretion said isletter, of continuity in may he that minutes led effect was tendered upon also by it to ofgood without was and the by be of thein On 'What is alternative warnings, employment?, as of recorded infather yourwhile it was the view earlier that fullterms back Tribunal. Sanghtan Court has ofwagesreference?
Full Vs. held responsible back am S.C. could that S/o being two remember wages not Sharma, in OPW.
be Sh.awarded. Probationer.....
taken such years would supporting Chhote person 2005 on cases, beof two any LLR record and theIt Lal However, the normal one.is member and275, R/o compensation Irule correct workman beingamifpersonal whileA-106, of only the of andEX Delhi.
thatsenior the file.
denying New grievance workman as Iparty CW1/X1.
emphasising cannot per wasIPS has beobjecting thatbeen less thatto than inthe ita
2. Copy of memo dated 05/08/99, Ex. WW1/M2.
23.
35. must only
37. service as workman surprising substance cases the Grievance claimed Arguments The following workmanwhere aestablish assigningregular and entireitas anywhich as Committee byfull is REINSTATEMENT/BACKWAGESthe and or the documents well the found Officer. the Seelampur, documents were Iback hisorder workman. allegations was University committee working asA/R circumstances substantial reason false have to heard wages videthe were be dulyIin ex-facie document seen and am Delhi stigmatic i.e management at evidence:-
as produced asreceived Ex.
no norms gainful termination the not involved length named well astatement was doubt WW1/M2, necessitating of have aware Probationer as inand .stigmatic as all but nature.
employment the by Ld. Imoral letter itself rules.
Amar other notbeen proceed him ARthe as Ex.
dated management.
shown the terminated Itturpitude is to consequential at and for Nath but was MW1/1, to that original. the workman departure". would also 26/03/01. to whether decide he further Sharma, betime the bepunitive.
is on Ex.
management Matter alleged the of held considered dated the also benefits.MW1/2
claim part that could was Since toto even on ofIt again & have had has denythe 3, if short back relief ofterm wages back heemployment would wages With isotherwise at theor regards, was be discretion appointed entitled of to.
the without court, it was followingheld that the it was proper for
2.
3. Whether Copy of extension the claimant illegally services Mohand termination At letter Shri atofpage service this and, workman dated Chaman Chand.
stage ofwas or my 14/03/2000, 1this unjustifiably services. terminated Lal These terminated register Hawaldar two Ex.
It directed is legally is or by WW1/M3.
person correct about the isIbeing still to that
(s) thebea probationer? back wages The principle to the20.4.01 was Sd/-emphatically workman, management, it has and of beenif this restated so, heldregister to Gujarat in now, what and in sum Steel North state of Tubes Est Karnatka Ltd. Vs.
10.
1. procedure
4. the been suppressed OPM.
basis terminated order the delinquent very adjourned Ex. It Copies WW1/M4, claimant/workman well prayed of was is According employee The etc., material further rulefounded called for the official. this toof accordingly. awardproduction services Ex.
tomaterial reasons sealed show ofthat complaints upon on stated the working were civildocuments on MW1/4, ofThe record, the full the of came workman, back that same language representatives fact.
on ground the back of therefor. law he in management Ex.
in an was also behalf dated original workman to Ex.
that notthe the wages WW1/M5, theknow that used envelope. not a of light WW1/M1 college of 07/03/2000, appellant minutes could Grievancein because at of management to Grievance gainfully containing contract thethe arguments aproduce Ex.
and not later to order workman. of WW1/M6, had of be Ex.
the Committee employed of my the stage personalhis 01/05/2000, proper.
failed ofWW1/M3 the Principal addressed Grievance Committeethat alleged termination signatures same the afterThe in Ex.
wason servicethe real misconduct.
his MW1/5and 26/03/01 performance on 29/05/2000, Committee. object of there constituted behalf service termination. cannot to wasand Ex.
the of in be
4. Copy Keeping 38.19/02/01, of written inMW1/1view Yours explanation the sincerely, facts and the circumstances workman dated of tokenthis case, 22/06/2000, workman is Ex. Gujarat Road Steel Trasporation Ex.Tubes Meeting money Smt. workman bear XXXXxx Vs. to Mazdoormay my Ex.
M. ashave Aruna by monetary signature MW1/4.
was Sabha Sitesh Ld. Nagangauda, taken not AR atare (AIR for relief point heard place, still 1980, workman. 2007 I Acan SCalongwith working before in LLR 1896), not 340 say,the inof in that I the following even self The WW1/M4.In U.P. initial onus State has any Brasswarewhere.now therefore, I am Corporation shifted nottoaware theVs.workman. Udaiof any Narain suchPandey, 2006 specifically
8. MW1/12.
13.
26. Governing both of purport may gross Management his Management, It Theex-facie parties. negligence is duties for enforced, offer denied andBody which administratively be My then most ofthat stigmatic.
had
in does
consequential findings appointment inon college. Grievance the having handling ofmanagement Nil. also their the not termination the next met on Opportunity limit receipt documents The W/s, Itthis and issue Committee to date is the benefit language letter see has aspect. jurisdiction technically. correct thereof.... ever order no.
produced the 1inagreed raised Ex.
of given". terms performance would used the was But that only WW1/2, isof management certain since the It issued, thereunder Reference workman be of representative to original the existing dependent withdraw correct documents clause labour preliminary of he two could was may was register clearly that 5,Security the on thencourts. also inprovides challenge my termination question objections; reflect containing had show It findings Guards was tothat the i.e gross violation was of not statement. principles present The of nor natural aware.
said justice.
statement Management is Thebeing college mayEX Karamchari words:
employment
18.
2.
5. awarded which reinstatement would laws/Government fetch with any continuity earning notifications ofthat to service and the to WW1 employee, and what with 50% including back alwaysCopy LLR During 214, It came of the understood evidence, memo Hon'ble to have be issued dated Chokidar of documents (Dr. that workman the Supreme reiterated written Aruna when 20/02/01, to theand workman time Ex.
workman examined Court Sitesh) namesan CW1/Y1. I was Sr. Administrative Officer at mostly Ex.
and order of WW1/M4 WW1/M5. considered anyagain of his were dated himself dutywas retrenchment members, 02/03/01, heard.
hours various grantaswritten what of were Ex.
The previousby onMW1/5. reinstatement has can been his affidavit judgments declared and firstly including letter on workman same there proceedings minutes it casewas Union issuewas thereafter. dated oftrying "Travelingthatof no.
shall something themeeting Deepati (DUCKU) 26/03/01.
workman happened to2,claimant be level as over other The onat proceedings me framed Prakash serious over night.
the protested relief probation and foundation to was As and samebe and showing the by regards IPremjeet it charges aagainstif directly cannot above my was Principal ground he probationer for ofofLd. the one the decided of the say the the entitled relevant Grievance year Predecessor. misconduct demand Vs. by attendance order assertion that and going and totheto same having Satender termination and terminate that notice his Principal the that Committee through against what ofifbear entire services As been the his the dated Nath notice such, the work officer everymy the of members disclosed controversy 27/07/01 andservice Boss workman were Iprecedent isproceed was not demanded validly Nationalby of found also, and the to is agricultural
6. Copy pursuits of I memo say the would Principal"
when dated relevant beI 01/03/01,included was time noti.e Ex.in in there 'gainful WW1/M6.
the in
year the employment'.
meeting. 2001 and now It isI rendered back 'illegal',
3. wages Ex. CopyWW1/Athe by was same it of extension and aandismatter concluded supposed directions besides the are signature of letter still college discretion are helying to tendered given atSmt. that be void necessary point inby the there of Aruna the ab-initio following workman was labour in Sitesh this no and respect?".court binding hence, and that precedent inoperative; the order that of the wages.
supererogatory and wrong am we retired. to hold suggest the rule that I isA.
office am simple It of deposing isdated documents the correct thatused college.
20/03/01, the tothat falsely.
take inItevidence:-
discretion I Ex. MW1/6.
I to deny
7. Thus, terminated claimant management decide satisfactory, appellant unsuitable since meeting. insteadCopy they issue of by offrom in The holding for were bycomplaint that giving no.
probation claims the the said the 2 case stated position Appointing prior job.
a work is have one register detailed at to correct dated can to month's to Above a received have from later be issue be was of 15/03/01, enquiry the extended Authority, that stage fourth repliedreinstatement mentioned no.
notice directed very document 1. proceeding the therein class basis in also to byoriginal during view to tests, the one Ex.
of be employees and Ex. of more and termination same retained WW1/6.
the however, order of giving his WW1/M5. back probation grievance year.
unsatisfactory vide wasat an on If arewages her held opportunity their order, record during It period not to being letter it exhaustive be till work that was and vitiated further to dated the year, also that and the
33.
the result In is contrast reinstatement consideration
28.Centre SEE labour for that :court or the and Basicofto (1) pare shouldthis, the employeefull case Sciences; V.P. document down back show by Ahuja the would wages Grievance AIR Ex.
Vs. 1999 quantum applicationbe CW1/X Stateshould deemed Committee SCofof of 983,which back mind to always Punjab;
be on isthis which wages wherein continuingthe be (2000) alleged was is the granted point.absent not 3 entire in SCCminutes when existing save (Hindustan servicecase 239 of for law andat-a (At this have seen the statement on page already stage Ld. AR for management Sh.
1.
4.
39. exceptional automatic Interview Copy Reference of memo reasons." consequence call letter is answered dated hone committee is correct ofdated aand 21/03/01 that she 19/03/99, hasIused accordingly. retrenchment issued have not to Ex.
received been tocollect Award being WW1/1.
thefoundfiled.
workman, isthe false passed. document I report illegal, have ExMW1/7. Copy we of have thecome awarda termination therefore, the is Rajeev EXCW1/Y1 held grant to of be theDayal illegal. relief andseeks ofIt it was permission may held reinstatement be so that to that a and cross personsit full may examine back is have notwages entitled alongwith to get Motors
2.
21.ISSUE Pursuant management dereliction 24/08/01. his in incumbent orders.
workman thatlaw.
the In work Ltd. Vs. to the Tapanreference, Kumar claim was reported filed asby (2002 the workman6was SCC, stating41; Indian therein the held with -said alleged time. theThis a is No. respect to course case.
upon of not be court isduty 2Grievance Thereafter, probationer to this been heard, very afound the The ofagainst deposed Ex.
thendespite management arguments, language well the probationer witness.
in my
the
satisfactory, directed WW1/M6 Committee like management IVwithin with various management class temporary Allowed. hand used hadSh.
the but itto its and R.S. employees the regard warnings in have Meeting been ) still right impugned came found services the Vashisth, selected servant do come reviewedtoto same held not up the and necessary terminate who up three is know with can order allegations on Secretary opportunities with by bear also used bethe 20/04/01 members the in the terminated by the termination my to entitled found Hon'ble what proceedings to this service be at from granted court toexamined to 10.30 on the Supreme beof order certainthat one ex-
on its am unitto long
2.
5. be way Then Appointment Copy sent to to inaappropriate of position Mohanlal letter letter written refused against where signature datedVs. bywork government theaward Bharat the 12/04/99, at wouldpoint workman workman of atlawful her for full Electronics, A.....
Ex. home back dated WW1/2.
publication on Itdoisand thewages 23/03/01, correct1981 ultimately basis within has (3) that Ex.
30ofactually SCC, IMW1/8.
days from become
215, the
the
something all benefits Railway Construction only of because continuous XXXXXXX it would service Co.this Vs. meeting be Ajay by Sh. Kumarbe to automatic. Rajeev reportedso.
Dayal, It was asLd. also (2003) acknowledged AR 4 SCC, 579; that he was connection employed with the management was held.
since It
April is correct
1999 as aany Chowkidar
14.
24. employees him.
Grievance month's facie their as simply (3) shows of rare. CW1.
The the stigmatic.
The own Although protection Court principle tried claim Sh.
and of notice.
In college R.S.
-it Jaswant Committee Principal and during His wasto ofand the reinstatement since make the used Vashisth, burden services that observed itSingh records/complaint. was workman who probation proceedings itwith appointed to would look was Secretary selected of cannot that full case terminate that like also have proving the beperiod, back should he by-termination as persons the is been their terminated said itthe being this wages unemployed Appointing have Iis without signed decision the Principal services have when one issue was beenbest simplicitor of an arbitrarily fully againhas assigning placed personal thealso piece on Authority of agreement been the stands very members coveredor reiteratedthe on ofon cast punitive record theevidence account denied serviceissued present thereby upon said reason byafter without although and the of in in the case it that ever In since Hindustan for that management KendriyaITin understand Works Vidalaya English Vs. Its very Sangthan employees well. (supra), Some reported body the as onus 1979 to (2) prove SCC
3.
6. M.P.receiptAppointment Copy State of complaint ofElectricity letter basis knowledge College.....
datedof false 11/03/01, 21/04/99, ofIt the award. Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141;report.
is the correct allegation Ex. MW1/9.
WW1/3.
that I mentioned
had also filedin
was The
noticed concept
that must
some of Ihave
ofknow
back the Roshangoes
approached wages earlier Lal alongwith judgments claimant, me for had workman assistance reinstatement indicated who thatfor since aearning labour itspeak was court
27.
29.
32. and his whatsoever. termination it management possession workman is The In However, prescribed the meeting. management last specifically the termination being present of drawn letter.
Secondly, management. on most probation Documents as were onpleaded per its case the wages civil probation. letter surprising agreed orderown The also complaint. reference suit period of that dated ofto were or since Toworkman against workman the management mywithdraw was Ld.@ withhold is 26/03/01 Rs.
admittedly isthe workman It also my over, Predecessor the 4705/- testimony is is such made Ex.
representative arecorrect termination. gainfully the WW1/4 should kind that to absolutely termination per workman a of that dated of month.
civil employed court dischargereads evidence have all suit false 08/06/04. letter was It the was as He witness called is already and under:-
did on order and claims probation, not upon Sh.
fabricated. However, also filed making that more agreedR.S. the by in unemployment 80, complying as well.
the normal withhad is writing shifted the rule present principles to a kind togrant in thecourt.
of workman.
of a natural reinstatement draft He and justice was I just anwith - Termination employee helped full him back of by order wages statingwas UP
4.
7.
40. State In Textile Termination Copy view of be Corporation performanceletter ofcontinuation the participating complaints wrong dated false report toand Vs. 26/03/01, suggest P.C. against of in the fabricated thatChaturvedi Ex.
workman, grievance theI WW1/4.
was workman documents reported negligent Ex. committee.
MW1/10.
were as
in the my
filed/tendered (2005)
in latest trend 8, by SCC, the
considered after weighing to all the management. facts and of the circumstances, I service am aware itself.
may However, award that he compensation was in lieu is during Then once writing again it in downJ.K. but SyntheticsI was not Vs. concerned K.P. Agarwal about the s. reported as
11.
36. than management the well Vashisth, It The acknowledged
34. allegations to view Since thatissue
211).
(2) ofisthe workman order for Rs.
the entire the 5000/-
the course Executive terminating further the credibility another appellant In to onpending against theof background per place Secretary settled Meru "denied his However, respect duties, month.
Screening basis letter law Yuva "failed the in his ofon him, employment, thethe same therefore, service of by of of himself to the Kendra in the wasthe March concerned management. night facts Grievances the he on isrecord previous point,passed.
who workman he the Sangathan performance 26, clearly management Iduties no was was court is never 2001 doubtbut not who not suggests except inof judgments. Surrounding shown burden gave neither confirmed". stigmatic Vs. of has thetopresent tothat one supersession his any himself Civil that Mehboob having be prove It there and duties cause in wasJudge present present that its failed isfor inadministratively been Iobserved circumstances ofeffect atin complaint case to no done, Tis termination Alam the stand and the Hazari Office is said that this earlier Lasker; not the by also if of that even reinstatement Chowkidar.
meeting as such. I am I can not not awaresay name about of any such In M/s against Lords of management
5.
8. reinstatement Letter Copy ofdatedagendaand appropriate back Sh.
24/04/01 ofis establishment was being wages.
Roshan meeting performing from Lal, proceedings replaced dated management committee.
my by separately 26/03/01, duties are thein compensation.
upholding Ex.dayMW1/11. times.
being the termination, initiated Ex.
2007after a LLR protracted 358, time misconducts person the and Chowkidar Hon'ble as Ihe energy doalleged Supreme consuming not worked even tothe have remember Court litigation been has what noticed during committedactually which the previous period the
15.to
25.
31. one the Courts.
Establishment court same the showing meeting service and As MW1, However, Then management document. of could called termination regards Thereafter, termination was technically" On Sh.
came
that
has not
for General V.K. Committee leaving this conciliation Statement discharge denied illegal letter.both have and production of Nayyar Vol.
ground
- and/or the service It been having Besides However, wasHaryana aside isThere above had existing of was wrong passed proceedings also, not simplicitor of CW1 ever unjustified thenotheSection isthe based reliefs Roadways in the no to technical is without attended affidavit such sincerely, Grievance suggest being rules present Officer solely would statutes/rules but also, ofwithdrawal on any Vs. holding for reproduced the aspects always filed reinstatement that management in claim an diligently Rudhan including order Committee the such in letterHawaldar lie an Highmanagement.
of and is assessmentis enquiry the hereunder absolutely meeting. upon and stated of Court was and Singh considering University. claims proceedings of theissued back punctually. and to The workman and wages (2005), Relevant for punitive to be appellant's giving have easy It entire inhave by not theis5 in as the Homeopathic (2008) 2 SCC Laboratories must by the 479, it have saidletterwas Vs. Roshan held Ms. happened. that Lal Lissyathe only Unnikunju in the Being event reported senior of as 2006 unsatisfactory IV,
9. the WW1/5.
workman judgments Copy just management of sustains and termination has Indraprastha workman Chaman concludedhimself, officials Lal i.ethat College datedrepresentative ultimately Sh. and award V.K. for 26/03/01, Principalofany Women, Nayyar, is back point toEx.
didbe inMW1/12.
wages Section not toldof College time.
appear that isOfficer becoming It (Admn.), though herare. willDr. To be SCC,However, undergone 591. The administrative is management avide Hon'ble progressive Shamnath correct Courtthat never dilution. officer, listed Marg, Ms. a Aruna appreciated In it few was Surender factors Siteshmy his duty on was Kumar performance which to help Principal Verma the orat award Vs. any of Central point back of AD maintainable. also duly original portions opportunity documents reference:-
and work stigmatic.
participated denied (Delhi), proceedings it is Supreme theandof his to to 739, conduct workman Court that be cross the broughtorder As alsoabsolutely inworkman theGoverning in an the examination such, during who sheet illegal witness Hon'ble by indicated said the termination comes necessary to proceedings dated Committee body.
probation bebox High management would to background heard 08/05/2000.
for
-There Court court ofread inbetter andservice had the his Termination are and only ofasthey is defence. under:-
been and reasons noof Delhi rendered it the is had For just he rule the constituted. held has appellant also Itdecision the false who that workman for iscited
-filed not same and asserts was only Stigmatic of their aroundreasons, the All without fabricated that areply case the and 20 his management quote reinstated,from he performance the will and judgment:
by guide they thebe Delhi. remained denied employee, other back officials. thesilent.wages termination It is which correct of thatwould probation there bewere due would toterminated him, have beenthe
6.
10. Aruna wages Copy could ofbeletter Sitesh, of Principal/Chairman demand based. college dated grievance complaints notice Some inof 24/04/01, 2001.
dated committee
against
these 27/07/01,
Ex. (at
factors&MW1/13.
workman this Sh. Ex.stage in are: the WW1/6.
R.D. witness false andisAdministration areuniversity Verma, Govt.
judgments Industrial of the Tribunal,
Supreme
officials senior 1981
Court to (1)
me SCR,
andinDelhi 2001 789, High
i.e itVicewasCourt held
Principal, that
to The conclude there may that be in
9. time.
allegations dated management where and holding workman record.Inin 10/07/02 "Coming punitive. termination
- Held their no order
- any would It enquiry Held made stands Order hasconfronted reply enquiry to was stating arrive "(Sealed back be
- on by on the been also was "It rules.
they quite the the merits, into at wages subjected test done face with therein is held directed workman thecorrect the know Consisting envelope and even governing well to original truth it charges illegally of their is ato no admitted ifthat of regarding produce sort explained it was the of opportunity stand.
the of containing is ofas six court termination and EX complaint absolutely matter, perthat penalty then unjustifiably stigmatic WW-
service persons, stigma findspara workman was thatof and it for 1/M6). management therules violative being clause given that two necessaryregister no-fault probation management and punitive of from was casted asto the onits of suchthe was is
- appointed oftoemployees provisions no upon workman it Hon'ble directed award his and longer avoided is he him as back who High i.e or of to itresisa to
5. heldOn to1. 27/07/01, beNaturejustified.
Principal, workman of Dear Sh.
However, employmentVersor sentetc.
Roshan a (whether when demand Lal,It the is notice foundation obvious permanent videfor that Registered there or such was temporary an order ADorPost isshortas not
7. Incharge
11. wages, exceptional suitable A.D. Copy the cases Card, of question signatures areply circumstances in Ex.
accordance containing compensationdated WW1/7.
(one) the workman will side be at 24/08/01 where with point ofwhether pages of law.
should anA appointment arethe false.
to are 1management, to back order be 3only thegranteddemand Itof is letter wages initials isopenedwrong dated reinstatement in three notice, should lieu and atto21/04/99, from ofthis not suggest Ex.
beandstage the the MW1/14.
awarded
reinstatement. full backfully wages or
wholly undeserved. term governing
daily It
wage was body stated
basis of
etc.) that trustees. any other I view can not would say be placing a
3. I.D.
16. onlyprobationer that University be produce heard, Workman he Act partially integra. examine has to was as the When any prove itRules.
well not is (and further full but, said filed otheralso agiven and thisas signatures Grievance however, the side that ifThis so, disciplinary officer and states principles abe CW any rejoinder case workman of proceedings 1not the of that of opportunity the where is itshown he Ms. Committee of workman denying stands natural percentage). enquiry the the was had management other Aruna management the of isof joined appointed and justice denied grievance the being register). That initiated way Sitesh Proceedings stand the the heard alsohas as round. management Principal that depends on usually no-one taken Icommittee come probation the shown have also histhrough Itcasebystand up upon premise can and as put seen performance cannot thewith be being on denied.
the 21/04/99 management aTermination that condemned becompetent absolutely facts there present for was andare in the may Court well an be Althoughwas asimpossible UPC, unsatisfactory held but there whether to same performance or are wrong is evoked inequitable there various towas in inform noon holding reply e.g., recent any the you from part when it that judgments specific ofas the the non-stigmatic the legal your management.
employee industry of the advisor might for Hon'ble of -but have overt Supreme closedacts
2. Method while of selection and employment.
8.
12. premium Postal Copy Fileon circumstances beof receipt, an postal of theEx. unwarranted cosigned the have tomarking receipt, for one minutes each WW1/8. confirmation one recordSecretary not case, Exyear ofbeen litigative the MW1/15.
Grievance any room. from was post.
filed who activity income 26/04/99.
placed intentionally Committee preside ofbefore receivedthe (Ld.Itemployer.
is over by AR Meetings the correct as the theOffice for employee during on probation 3. Length the till ofmanagement service. 25/04/01. His or not.
probation It has period been was very extended long from
12.
22. the downsatisfactory. and false officer unheard serious Court
6. the order Itmeeting, The reiterating relevant orand is and granting management minutes further and allegations could Workman However, amounting might not to management manipulated management which period the According stated be small even to in of pasted show have claims the contents that meeting. workman meeting on of in misconduct, has that documents. inwhat vide accountwas misconduct amount though severe that Establishment been to same the be is to thethey passed directed termination of in Itof was also has management, the is letter of register correct happened financialclaim not original directed on compensation were termination Committee unemployment judgment, an without opportunity at the to dated presented alternativeofpage as place that service part register being to doldrums admittedlywas on in he holding deviation of andthe 14/03/2000, representative 2produce the usedthere true ranging legal of employment 26/03/2001. ever of a orIoriginal present were state the to and the and delinquent stilland be where regular since from hearing from in that tendered the justified date this to on claimant/probationer correct. service case.
the frequently of or enquirythe Rs. Termination through business officer service of rule the rules but his ittime and concerned 10,000/-
since was employee absent of of isis illegal Sh.to the his for the also a to the
4. Time time.elapsed record in There after thenote may his course have termination.
ofcontaining the been.
day). It is wrong to
9. Announced
20. relevant UPC, Besides, factor Ex. in management WW1/9.
to
the be
itopenisproceedings probation the taken workman certainly court also period were confronted ofnotare while included biased.
ofawardingthethe ItImy inworkman theam workman, notwages, is signatures back grievance wrong aware was during to in addition his cross to employee 25,000/-, time. would none Workman of have these suggest secured judgments that requested for anthe for employment lay down reason confirmation any that else formula there of where.
were
his or By
guidelines other job, the however, very to tone arrive the
17.
30. from was R.S. employees, of recognized Today the service On During referred onVashisth, several explanation management the order duty workman wasthe and of 01/10/2008 itabout course and basis all to factorsthe thereSecretary and to stigmatic the otherwise was anythis of workman of The show contents extended committee suggest duly thefinal vide observed mentioned uponwhere even - pleadings, constituted who has committee that of arguments, also is order that forwas held that been thereof. otherwise Departmentalit inEX hisone was MW-
examined dated workman order following to work Grievance Rudhan year.
itwas be rejected, decided I could not 1/M6.
transpired illegal 08/05/08. was tonot legal enquiry It as Singh toissues prove have not services pursuant and Vol.
Committee is CW1 as correct that (supra). terminate present was been Being satisfactory. wellwere effective with While Grievance as justified.inwere necessary. framed that and respect thereto at unjustified. your any summoned the the Therefore,TheaItCommittee by terms to Grievance isrelevant full While the my by further Issue itsaid and Ld. scale is the the termination. concerned is senior Conciliation imperative. officers proceedings In to other me,(SUJATAwords, there washad also ifKOHLI) the no need been employee initiated for meistofound to have but same also necessary
19.Governing and at failed clarified Committee Predecessor examination, record.
portions observation committed formal proceedings conditions management no.tenor the "In the Management, It 2 said iswas and for enquiry of decided of The thatvery the the ultimately held cross in of misconduct of amount.on Bodywhich with nature employee such resolution senior guide to judgment, the its Hon'ble services, 08/06/2004:-
service has against prove that examination meeting on certain ofthereafter of meeting representation terminated probation was been post dispute in other thethe High However, the the things, statedto tendered and it case plead giving although ,initiated, documents other these was endorsed alleged management was Court there officials. the managementconduct period of Iof illegally". the toimplied inhand, kind workmanthat J.U. period be referred by youam workman cannot culminating proceedings. an inthe the the being ofthat he AdditionalAkhtar abasis examined rules that order instead was absolutely tomonth's witness documents of and termination the workman. are case Vol.
as be probation the court in has workman of not under:-
being arendered District Vs. terminating favour onus in ofwas was straight gainfully notice termination As University Sh.
Ifor unaware aconfirming never Management & finding reproduced regards that to exhibit order Iwas adjudication. was V.K. ofdo prove was the jaclet Sessions w.e.f.
went not of employed aprobation the Nayyar, of as the impugned workman. order being long the formula Judge Non-Academic theguilt; Ex.
the hereunder:-
proceedings exceptional appointing had period CW1/X1.
extended that Section workman, from ofwould M/s never order for the of the date of relief awarding his termination----.
through ofabout 26.3.2001 administrative extended remember back methis atso wages. in called any head. view as stage. more.
Allto Itofrelevant is your Presiding when It isunsatisfactory wrong meeting. Officer wrong to the suggest considerations The date to Labour suggest resolution work theCourt-II, that Iwill enter the service circumstances Markfed and Agro the time would reported andelapsed be on as after the 2006 dereliction his employer. VIII oftermination AD However, (Delhi) duty, despite Karkardooma was 33, insmaller the Kendriya Hon'ble repeated Courts, in comparison, Vidyalya Delhi High
7. before
1. because authority Officer Statement was appear order been Employees verdict.
ISSUE To Copy What terminatednot produced Workman ofwhat the to (Admn.) Moreof termination stigmatic of emerges No. hisand at Establishment behis were letter relief, page that am or innocuous work 1(Relief)the by claims as produced lessdeposing dated 1 I the if grievance from "It upon letter MW1 of being am itof any, Maximum management the is21/04/99, service would service immediately tendered to the deposing this, itself, Committee dated is correct register on unsatisfactory on falsely be the pleadings his becommittee Hon'ble the entitled would the by the managementworkman 24/04/01 a affidavit period Ex.
that next ison falsely. on same Ex.
it motion WW1/M1.
be ground never its Supreme and I date, to of CW1/1.
and was held entitled would own was Ex.
probation reinstatement the Vol.
only saw addressed on receiptat of not MW1/A. of stigmatic. appointed nor issued over constituted. Court be light because I sympathy. against a they am photocopy vitiated all period to thisthestageof inobserved a Besides, were evidence theday.
the with his as There this very is I if a management work called I regard discretion said isletter, of continuity in may he that minutes led effect was tendered upon also by it to ofgood without was and the by be of thein On 'What is alternative warnings, employment?, as of recorded infather yourwhile it was the view earlier that fullterms back Tribunal. Sanghtan Court has ofwagesreference?
Full Vs. held responsible back am S.C. could that being two remember Probationer..... wages not Sharma, in OPW.
betaken such awarded.
years would supporting person 2005 on cases, beof two any LLR record and theIt However, the normal one.is member and275, compensation Irule correct workman beingamifpersonal while of only the of andEX Delhi.
thatsenior the file.
denying grievance workman as Iparty CW1/X1.
emphasising cannot per wasIPS has beobjecting thatbeen less thatto than inthe ita
2. Copy of memo dated 05/08/99, Ex. WW1/M2.
23.
35. must only
37. service as workman surprising substance cases the Grievance claimed Arguments The following workmanwhere aestablish assigningregular and entireitas anywhich as Committee by full REINSTATEMENT/BACKWAGESis the and or the documents well the found documents were Iback Officer. the hisorder workman. allegations was University committee working asA/R circumstances substantial reason false have to heard wages videthe were be dulyIin ex-facie document seen and am stigmatic i.e management at evidence:-
as produced asreceived Ex.
no norms gainful termination the not involved length named well astatement was doubt WW1/M2, necessitating of aware Probationer as inand .stigmatic as all but nature.
employment the by Ld. Imoral letter itself rules.
Amar proceed other nothim ARthe as Ex.
dated management.
shown the Itturpitude is to consequential at and for Nath but was MW1/1, to that original. the workman departure". would also 26/03/01. to whether decide he further Sharma, betime the bepunitive.
is on Ex.
management Matter alleged the of held considered dated the also benefits.MW1/2
claimpart that could was Since totoeven on ofIt again & have had has denythe 3, if short back relief ofterm wages back heemployment would wages With isotherwise at theor discretion regards, was be appointed entitled of to.
the without court, it was followingheld that the it wasproper for
2.
3. Whether Copy of extension the claimantservices Mohand termination At letter Shri atofpage service this workman dated Chaman Chand.
stage ofwas my 14/03/2000, 1this services.
terminated Lal These terminated register Hawaldar two Ex.
It directed is legally is or WW1/M3.
person correct about isIbeing still to that
(s) thebea probationer? back wages The principle to the20.4.01 was Sd/-emphatically workman, it has of this restated been heldregister Gujarat in now, and in North Steel state Tubes Est Karnatka Ltd. Vs.
10.
1. procedure
4. the been suppressed OPM.
basis terminated order the delinquent very adjourned Ex. It Copies WW1/M4, claimant/workman well prayed of was is According employee The etc., material further rulefounded called for the official. this to of accordingly. awardproduction services Ex.
tomaterial reasons sealed show ofthat complaints upon on stated the working were civildocuments on MW1/4, ofThe record, the full the of came workman, back that same language representatives fact.
on ground the back of therefor. law he in management Ex.
in an was also behalf dated original workman to Ex.
that notthe the wages WW1/M5, theknow that used envelope. not a of light WW1/M1 college of 07/03/2000, appellant minutes could Grievancein because at of management to Grievance gainfully containing contract thethe arguments aproduce Ex.
and not later to order workman. of WW1/M6, had of be Ex.
the Committee employed of my the stage personalhis 01/05/2000, proper.
failed ofWW1/M3 the Principal addressed Grievance Committeethat alleged termination signatures same the afterThe in Ex.
wason servicethe real misconduct.
his MW1/5and 26/03/01 performance on 29/05/2000, Committee. object of there constituted behalf service termination. cannot to wasand Ex.
the of in be
4. Copy Keeping 38.19/02/01, of written inMW1/1view Yours explanation the sincerely, facts and the circumstances workman dated of tokenthis case, 22/06/2000, workman is Ex. Gujarat Road Steel Trasporation Ex.Tubes Meeting Smt. workman bear XXXXxx Vs. to Mazdoormay my Ex.
Aruna M. signature MW1/4.
haveby was Sabha Sitesh Ld. Nagangauda, taken not AR atare (AIR forpoint heard place, still 1980, workman. 2007 I Acan working before SC in LLR 1896), not 340 say,the inof in that I the following even self The WW1/M4.In U.P. initial onus State has any Brasswarewhere.now therefore, I am Corporation shifted nottoaware theVs.workman. Udaiof any Narain suchPandey, 2006 specifically
8. MW1/12.
13.
26. Governing both of purport may gross Management his Management, It Theex-facie parties. negligence is duties for enforced, offer denied andBody which administratively be My then most ofthat stigmatic.
had
in does
findings appointment inon college. Grievance the having handling ofmanagement Nil. also their the not termination the next met on Opportunity limit receipt documents The W/s, Itthis and issue Committee to date isletter see hasthe language aspect. jurisdiction technically. correct thereof.... ever order no.
produced the raised Ex.
of1agreed given". performance would used the was But that only WW1/2,management certain since the It issued, thereunder Reference workman be of representative to isoriginal the dependent withdraw correct documents clause labour preliminary of he two could was may was register clearly that 5,Security the on thencourts. also inprovides challenge my termination question objections; reflect containing had show It findings Guards was tothat the i.e gross violation was of not statement. principles present The of nor natural aware.
said justice.
statement Management is Thebeing college mayEX Karamchari words:
employment
18.
2.
5. awarded which reinstatement would fetch with any continuity earning ofthat to service the employee, and with 50% including back alwaysCopy LLR During 214, It came of the understood evidence, memo Hon'ble to have be issued dated Chokidar of documents (Dr. that workman the Supreme reiterated written Aruna when 20/02/01, to theand workman time Ex.
workman examined Court Sitesh) namesan CW1/Y1. I was Sr. Administrative Officer at mostly Ex.
and order of WW1/M4 WW1/M5. considered anyagain of his were dated himself dutywas retrenchment members, 02/03/01, heard.
hours various grantaswrittenWW1 what of were Ex.
The previousby onMW1/5. reinstatement has can been his affidavit judgments declared and firstly including letter on workman same there proceedings minutes it casewas Union issue agricultural was thereafter. dated oftrying "Travelingthatof no.
shall something themeeting Deepati (DUCKU) pursuits26/03/01.
workman happened to2,claimant be level asThe over onat proceedings me framed Prakash serious over night.
probation and the protested would Principal" foundation to was As and same be be and showing the by regards IPremjeet it charges aagainst directly cannot includedabove my was Principal probationer for ofofLd.
ground the one the decided of the say the relevant the in Grievance year Predecessor. misconduct demand Vs. by attendance order assertion that and going and totheto same having Satender termination 'gainful terminate that notice his Principal the that Committee through employment'.against ofifbear entire services As been the his the dated Nath notice such, the work officer everymy the of members disclosed controversy 27/07/01 service Boss and workman were Iprecedent isproceed was not demanded validly by of Nationalfound also, and the to is
6. rendered back 'illegal', Copy wages the by of was same it I memo a say andthe ismatter when dated relevant concluded supposed of I was 01/03/01,time discretion to noti.e that be voidthere Ex.inthere of WW1/M6.
the
the in
year
ab-initio wasthe labour meeting.
2001no and court and binding hence, andnow It is that I precedent inoperative; the order that of the
3. Ex. Copy wages. WW1/A supererogatory of extension and and besides the are signature we letter still college hold helying tendered given atSmt.
the point inby rule the Aruna following workman isA.
office simpleSitesh It of isdated documents the correct thatused college.
20/03/01, the tothat take inItevidence:-
discretion I Ex. MW1/6. to deny Thus, from wrong amthe retired.
to suggest position of that I reinstatementam deposing and falsely.
back wages I being the
7.
33.
the terminated claimant management decide satisfactory, appellant unsuitable since meeting.
instead
result Copy
In they
issue
of
is contrast reinstatement consideration
28.Centre SEE labour for that by of in The holding :courtfor were by thecomplaint that giving no.
probation orand Basicclaims the ofthe said to (1) 2 case stated pare should Appointing prior job.
a work is this, the employee have one fullregister detailed Sciences;
V.P. at
to
casecorrect dated can to month's to Above a received document down back show have from later be issue by Ahuja be was 15/03/01, the would enquiry the extended Authority, that stage fourth replied mentioned wagesno.
notice Grievance AIR directed very Ex.
Vs. applicationbe document 1999 quantum 1.
proceeding the therein class basis CW1/X State in also to by should deemed original during view to Committee SCofof tests, the one ofEx.
of be employees and Ex.
983, mind to of more termination same retained WW1/6.
which the always Punjab;
back behowever, order of giving his WW1/M5.
wherein on probation grievance year.
unsatisfactory vide isthis which wages continuingwas theat bean on (2000) If are her held opportunity their order, was is the record point.during alleged It grantedperiod not absent not 3 entire in to letter it SCCexhaustive be till work that was and minutesvitiated when existing save (Hindustan servicecase further to dated 239year, also that and the of for law andat-a (At this have seen the statement on page already stage Ld. AR for management Sh.
1.
4.
39. exceptional automatic Interview Copy Reference of memo reasons." consequence call letter is answered dated hone committee is correct ofdated aand 21/03/01 that she 19/03/99, hasIused accordingly. retrenchment issued have not to Ex.
received been tocollect Award being WW1/1.
thefoundfiled.
workman, isthe false passed. document I report illegal, have ExMW1/7. Copy we of have thecome awarda termination therefore, the is grantRajeev EXCW1/Y1 held to of be theDayal illegal. relief andseeks It it ofclass was permission may held reinstatement be so that to that a and cross personsit full may examine back is have notwages entitled alongwith to get Motors
21.ISSUE management dereliction 24/08/01. his in incumbent orders.
workman thatlaw.
the In work Ltd. Vs. Tapan Kumar reported as (2002 6was SCC, 41; Indian the held with -said alleged time. theThis a is No. respect to course case.
upon of not be court isduty 2Grievance Thereafter, probationer to this been heard, very afound the The ofagainst deposed Ex.
thendespite management arguments, language well the probationer witness.
in my
the
satisfactory, directed WW1/M6 Committee like management IVwithin with various management temporary Allowed. hand used hadSh.
the but itto its was and R.S. employees the regard warnings in have Meeting been ) still right impugned came found services the Vashisth, selected servant do come reviewedtoto same held not up the and necessary terminate who up three is know with can order allegations on Secretary opportunities with by bear also used bethe 20/04/01 members the in the terminated by the termination my to entitled found Hon'ble what proceedings to this service be at from granted court toexamined to 10.30 on the Supremebeof order certainthat one ex-
on its am unitto long
2.
5. be way Then Appointment Copy sent to to inaappropriate of position Mohanlal letter letter written refused against where signature datedVs. bywork government theaward Bharat the 12/04/99, at wouldpoint workman workman of atlawful her for full Electronics, A.....
Ex. home back dated WW1/2.
publication on Itdoisand thewages 23/03/01, correct1981 ultimately basis within has (3) that Ex.
30ofactually SCC, IMW1/8.
days from become
215, the
the
something all benefits Railway Construction only of because continuous XXXXXXX it would service Co.this Vs. meeting be Ajay by Sh. Kumarbe to automatic. Rajeev reportedso.
Dayal, It was asLd. also (2003) acknowledged AR 4 SCC, 579; connection was held. It is correct
14.
24. employees him.
Grievance month's facie their as simply (3) shows of rare. CW1.
The the stigmatic.
The own Although protection Court principle tried claim Sh.
and of notice.
In college R.S.
-it Jaswant Committee Principal and during His wasto reinstatementofand the since make the used Vashisth, burden services that observed itSingh records/complaint. was workman who probation proceedings itwith appointed to would look was Secretary selected of cannot that full case terminate that like also have proving the beperiod, back should he by-termination as persons the is been their terminated said itthe being this wages unemployed Appointing have Iis without signed decision the Principal services have when one issue was beenbest simplicitor of an arbitrarily fully againhas assigning placed personal thealso piece on Authority of agreement been the stands very members coveredor reiteratedthe on ofon cast punitive record any evidence service the account denied issued present thereby upon said reason byafter without although and the of in in the case it that ever In since Hindustan for that management KendriyaITin understand Works Vidalaya English Vs. Its very Sangthan employees well. (supra), Some reported body the as onus 1979 to (2) prove SCC
3.
6. M.P.receiptAppointment Copy State of ofElectricitycomplaint letter basis knowledge College.....
datedof false 11/03/01, 21/04/99, ofIt the award. Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141; report.
is the correct allegation Ex. MW1/9.
WW1/3.
that I mentioned
had also filedin
was The
noticed concept
that must
some of Ihave
ofknow
back the Roshangoes
approached wages earlier Lal alongwith judgments claimant, me for had workman assistance reinstatement indicated who thatfora since labour itspeak was court
27.
29.
32. whatsoever. termination it management possession workman is The In However, prescribed the specifically the meeting. management unemployment complying as well. termination being present of letter.
Secondly, management. on most probation with Documents as were had onpleaded per its case the civil probation. letter surprising agreed shifted the orderown The also complaint. reference suit period principles of to that dated oftoor since Toworkman against workman the management my the withhold withdrawis 26/03/01 was Ld. admittedly is workman.
of the
workman
It
also mytestimony is over, Predecessor natural the is such made Ex.
representative arecorrect termination. gainfully the WW1/4 should kind that to absolutely termination justice workman a of that dated
- ofcivil employed court dischargereads evidence have all suit false 08/06/04. Termination letter was It the was as witness called is already and under:-
and earning did on order probation, not upon Sh.
fabricated. However, also order filed makingmore agreedR.S. stating the by in 80, UP the State normal Textile is writing rule present Corporation to a kind grant in court.
ofVs. a reinstatement draft P.C. He and was Chaturvedi I just anwith employee helped reported full him back as of by (2005) wages 8, SCC,was
4.
7.
40.
considered Termination Copy In after weighing view of be to performanceletter ofcontinuation all the the participating complaints wrong dated false facts report and toand26/03/01, suggest of against of in the fabricated the circumstances, that service Ex.
workman, grievance theI WW1/4.
was workman documents itself.
may negligent Ex. committee. However, award MW1/10.
were in the my filed/tenderedin latest trend compensation by in lieu the is Then once management.
writing
again it
in downJ.K. but I
SyntheticsI am was notaware Vs. concerned K.P. that Agarwal he about wasthe s. reported as
11.
36. than management the well Vashisth, It The workman acknowledged
34. order for Rs.
allegations to view Since thatissue ofisentire the the 5000/-
the Executive terminating further the another appellant credibility to onpending against the"denied background per place Secretary settled Meru However, respect duties, month.
Screening basis letter law Yuva "failed the in his ofon him, thethe same therefore, service of by of of himself to the Kendra in the wasthe March concerned management. night facts Grievances the he on isrecord previous point,passed.
who workman the Sangathan performance 26, clearly management Iduties no was was court is 2001 doubtbut not who not suggests except inof judgments. neither confirmed". Surrounding shown burden stigmatic Vs. of has thetopresent tothat one supersession his himself Civil that having be prove Mehboob It there and duties in wasJudge present present that its failed inadministratively been Iobserved circumstances ofeffect isatin case to no done, Tisstand termination Alam the and the Hazari Office is said that this earlier Lasker; not the by also if of
211).
(2) In Chowkidar.
meeting as such. I am I can not not awaresay name about of any such that
5.
8. even of management reinstatement Letter Copy reinstatement ofdated agendaand back Sh.
24/04/01 appropriate ofis establishment was being wages.
Roshan meeting performing from Lal, proceedings replaced dated management committee.
my by separately 26/03/01, duties are thein compensation.
upholding Ex.dayMW1/11. times.
being the termination, In M/s against initiated Lords Ex.
2007after a LLR protracted 358, time misconducts person the and Chowkidar Hon'ble energy as I doalleged not even Supreme consuming tothe have remember Court litigation been has what noticed during committedactually which the previous period the
15.one
25.
31. Courts. Establishment court same the showing meeting service and As MW1, However, document. of Then could called termination regards Thereafter, termination was technically" On Sh.
came
that
has not
for General V.K. Committee leaving this conciliation Statement discharge denied illegal letter.both have production of Nayyar Vol.
ground
- and/or service It been having Besides the However, wasHaryana aside isThere above existing of was wrong passed proceedings also, not simplicitor of CW1 ever unjustified thenotheSection isthe based reliefs Roadways in the no to technical is without Grievance attended affidavit such suggest being rules present Officer solely would statutes/rules but also, ofwithdrawal on any Vs. holding for reproduced the aspects always filed reinstatement that management in claim ansuch Rudhan including order Committee the in letterHawaldar lie an Highmanagement.
of and is assessmentis enquiry the hereunderSingh absolutely meeting. upon and stated of Court was considering University. claims proceedings of theissued back and to The workman and wages (2005), Relevant for punitive to be appellant'sgiving have easy It entire inhave by not theis5 in as the Homeopathic (2008) 2 SCC Laboratories must by the 479, it have saidletterwas Vs. Roshan held Ms. happened. that Lal Lissyathe only Unnikunju in the Being event reported senior of as 2006 unsatisfactory IV,
9. the WW1/5.
workman judgments Copy just management of sustains and termination has Indraprastha workman Chaman concludedhimself, officials Lal i.ethat College datedrepresentative ultimately Sh. and award V.K. for 26/03/01, Principalofany Women, Nayyar, is back point toEx.
didbe inMW1/12.
wages Section not toldof College time.
appear that isOfficer becoming It (Admn.), though herare. willDr. To be SCC, undergone 591. The avide administrative is Hon'ble progressive Shamnath correct Courtthat dilution. officer, listed Marg, Ms. a Aruna In it few was Surender factors Sitesh my duty on was Kumar which to help Principal Verma the or award Vs. of Central back AD maintainable. also duly original portions opportunity documents reference:-
and work stigmatic.
participated denied (Delhi), proceedings it is Supreme theandof his to workman Court to 739, conduct that be cross the broughtorder As alsoabsolutely inworkman theGoverning in an the examination such, during who sheet illegal witness Hon'ble by indicated said the termination comes necessary to proceedings dated Committee body.
probation bebox High management would to background heard 08/05/2000.
for
-There Court court ofread inbetter andservice had the his Termination are and only ofasthey is defence. under:-
been and reasons noof Delhi rendered it the is had For just he rule the constituted. held has appellant also Itdecision the false who that workman for iscited
-filed not same and asserts was only Stigmatic of their aroundreasons, the All without areply fabricated that case the and 20 his management quote reinstated,from he performance the will and judgment:
by guide they thebe Delhi. remained denied employee, other back officials. thesilent.wages termination It is which correct of thatwould probation there bewere due would toterminated him, have beenthe
6.
10. Aruna wages Copy could ofbeletter Sitesh, of Principal/Chairman demand based. college dated grievance complaints notice Some inof 24/04/01, 2001.
dated committee
against
these 27/07/01,
Ex. (at
factors&MW1/13.
workman this Sh. Ex.stage in are: the WW1/6.
R.D. witness false andisAdministration areuniversity Verma, Govt. Industrial judgments of the Tribunal, Supreme officials senior 1981 Court to (1) me SCR, andinDelhi 2001 789, High i.e itVicewasCourt held Principal, that to The conclude there may that be in
9. holding allegations dated management where and workman record.Inin 10/07/02 "Coming punitive. termination their no order any would It enquiry Held made reply stands hasconfronted enquiry to was -stating arrive "(Sealed back be by on the been also was "It rules.
they quite the merits, into at wages subjected test done with therein is held directed workman thecorrect the know Consisting envelope and even governing well to original truth it charges illegallytheir is ato no admitted ifthat of regarding produce sort explained the and of opportunity stand.
the ofofcourt termination EX containing isas six complaint absolutely matter, perthat penalty then unjustifiably WW-
service persons, stigma findspara workman was thatof it for 1/M6). management therules violative being clause given that two necessaryregister no-fault probation management and of from was casted asto the onits of suchthe was appointed of is toemployees provisions no upon workman his directed award and longer avoided it is hehim as back i.e or of to itres who isa to
- Held
5. heldOn to1. - Order 27/07/01, beNaturejustified. on Principal, the workman Dear face Sh.
However, Versor of sentetc. Roshan itwhenwas a (whether demand Lal,It stigmatic the is notice foundation obvious and videfor that punitive Registered there such was - Hon'ble an order ADorPost High isshortas not signaturesof employment at point permanent or temporary
7. Incharge
11. wages, exceptional suitable A.D. Copy the cases Card, of areply question circumstances in Ex.
accordance containing compensationdated WW1/7.
(one) the workman will side 24/08/01 be ofwhether where with pages of law.
should anA appointment arethe false.
to are 1management, to back order be 3only thegranteddemand Itof is letter wages initials isopenedwrong dated reinstatement in three notice, should lieu and atto21/04/99, from ofthis not suggest Ex.
beandstage the the MW1/14.
awarded
reinstatement. full backfully wages or
wholly undeserved. term governing
daily It
wage was body stated
basis of
etc.) that trustees. any other I view can not would say be placing a
16.I.D. onlyprobationer that University be produce heard, Workman he Act partially integra. examine has to was as the When any prove itRules.
well notisfull but, said (and filed otheralso agiven and thisas signatures Grievance however, the side that principles abe ifThisCW so, disciplinary officer and any rejoinder case workman of proceedings 1not the of of opportunity the where is itshown Ms. Committee of workman denying stands natural percentage).
enquiry
the
the was
management other Aruna management the of isof appointed and justice denied grievance the being register). That initiated way Sitesh Proceedings stand the heard alsohas as round.Principal that depends on usually no-one taken Icommittee come probation the shown have also histhrough bystand premise Itcase up uponcan and as put seen performance cannot thewith be being denied.
the management aTermination that condemned becompetent absolutely facts there present for was andare in the may Court well an be Althoughwas asimpossible UPC, unsatisfactory held but there whether to same performance or are wrong is evoked inequitable there various towas in inform noon holding reply e.g., recent any the you from part when it that judgments specific ofas the the non-stigmatic the legal your management.
employee industry of the advisor might for Hon'ble of -but have overt Supremeclosedacts
2. Method while of selection and employment.
8.
12. premium Postal Copy Fileon circumstances beof receipt, an postal of theEx. unwarranted cosigned the have tomarking receipt, for one minutes each WW1/8. confirmation one recordSecretary not case, Exyear ofbeen litigative the MW1/15.
Grievance any room. from was post.
filed who activity income 26/04/99.
placed intentionally Committee preside ofbefore receivedthe (Ld.Itemployer.
is over by AR Meetings the correct as the theOffice for employee during
3. Length the management management ofcontents service. is or directed not. to It has place been the very long
12.
22. the downsatisfactory. and false officer unheard serious Court
6. the Itmeeting, The reiterating relevant orand is and granting management order minutes further and manipulated allegations could Workman might management which period notto the According stated be small even of pasted show have claims that meeting. workman meeting on of in has amount though that documents. inwhat vide accountwas misconduct severe that Establishment been to the be to termination theof in Itof they passed was also has management, the is letter of register correct happened financialclaim not original directed on were termination dated presented alternative compensation Committee unemploymentwithout at the ofpage as that service part register being to doldrums admittedlywas on in he holding 14/03/2000, representative 2produce of the usedthere true of employment and ranging legal 26/03/2001. ever a orIoriginal present were state the to and the and delinquent stilland be where regular since from in that tendered the or justified date on claimant/probationer correct. service case.
the frequently of enquirythe Rs. Termination through business officer service of rules but his absent of itand concerned 10,000/-
since of isis illegal Sh.
the his the for thea to However, amounting 4. Time to in time.elapsedthe misconduct, same There after judgment, an may his opportunity have termination. deviation been. of It from hearing is wrong this to to rule the was employee also
9. Announced
20. relevant UPC, Besides, factor Ex. record in management WW1/9.
to
the be
itopen takenin isproceedings probation the thenote workman certainly court course also period were ofnot ofcontaining confronted are while the included biased. day). ofawardingthethe ItImy inworkman theam workman, notwages, is signatures back grievance wrong aware was during to in addition his cross to employeenone 25,000/-, would of have these suggest secured judgments that for anthe employment lay down reason any that else formula there where.
were or By the very guidelines other to tone arrive
17.
30. from was R.S. employees, of recognized Today the service On During referred onVashisth, several explanation management the order duty workman wasthe and ofcourse and basis 01/10/2008 factorsitabout all tothe thereSecretary and tothe otherwise was anythis of workman of The show contents extended committee suggest duly thefinal vide observed mentioned upon even pleadings, constituted who has
- committee where that of arguments, also is order that forwas held that in itbeen thereof.
otherwise EX
hisone
was MW-
examined dated workman order following to work Grievance Rudhan Iyear.
itwas be rejected, decided could not 1/M6.
transpired illegal 08/05/08.
was
tonot
legal It
as
Singh
toissues prove have not services pursuant and Vol.
Committee is CW1 as correct that terminate present been Being satisfactory. wellwere effective (supra). with While Grievance as justified. were framed that and respect thereto in at unjustified. your any summoned the the Therefore, The aItCommittee by terms to Grievance isrelevant full the my byfurther Issue itsaid and Ld. scale is the termination. concerned isstigmatic Conciliation imperative. senior officers Departmental proceedings In other to me,(SUJATAwords, there enquiry had was ifalsothe no KOHLI) was been employee need necessary.
initiated for me is to but found While same to havethe also necessary
19.no.
and at failed clarified Committee Predecessor examination, record.
portions observation committed formal proceedings conditions management tenor the "In the Management, It 2 said iswas and for enquiry of decided of The thatvery the the ultimately held cross in of misconduct of amount.on which with nature employee such resolution senior guide to judgment, the its Hon'ble 08/06/2004:-
service has against prove thatservices, examination meeting on certain thereafter of meeting representation terminated probation was been post dispute in other thethe High However,the things, statedto tendered and it case giving although plead ,initiated, documents other these was endorsed alleged management was Court there officials.
the conduct period of Iof illegally". the toimplied inhand, kind workmanthat J.U. you period be referred by am workman cannot culminating proceedings. an inthe the the being ofthat he AdditionalAkhtar abasis examined rules that order witness was absolutely documents of andtomonth's termination the workman. are case Vol.
as be probation the court in has workman of not under:-
being arendered District terminating favour onus in was was astraight Vs. gainfully termination As University Sh. notice Ifor neverunaware Management & finding reproduced regards that to exhibit order Iwas jaclet Sessions w.e.f.
adjudication. was V.K. ofdo prove was thewent not of employed aprobation the Nayyar, of as the impugned workman. order being long the formula Judge Non-Academic theguilt; Ex.hereunder:-
proceedings exceptional appointing had period CW1/X1.
extended that Sectionfrom ofwould M/s never order for the of the date of relief awarding his termination----.
through ofabout 26.3.2001 administrative extended remember back methis atso wages. in called any head. view as stage. more.
Allto Itofrelevant is your Presiding when It isunsatisfactory wrong meeting. Officer wrong to the suggest considerations The date to Labour suggest resolution work theCourt-II, that Iwill enter the service circumstances Markfed and Agro the time would reported andelapsed be on as after the 2006 dereliction his employer. VIII oftermination AD However, (Delhi) duty, despite Karkardooma was 33, insmaller the Kendriya Hon'ble repeated Courts, in comparison, Vidyalya Delhi High
7. before
1. because authority Officer Statement was appear order been Employees verdict. To Copy What not produced Workman ofwhat the to (Admn.) More ISSUE No. 1(Relief)of termination stigmatic of emerges and at Establishment behis were letter relief, page that am or innocuous work the by tendered by the management at this stage is may claims as produced lessdeposing dated 1 I the if grievance from "It upon letter MW1 of being am itof any, Maximum management the is21/04/99, service would to the deposing this, itself, Committee dated is correct register on unsatisfactory on falsely be the pleadings his becommittee Hon'ble the entitled would the workman 24/04/01 a affidavit period Ex.
that next ison falsely. on same Ex.
it motion WW1/M1.
be ground never its Supreme and I date, to of CW1/1.
and was held entitled would own was Ex.
probation reinstatement the Vol.
only saw addressednot MW1/A. of stigmatic. appointed nor issued over constituted. Court be light because I sympathy. against a they am photocopy vitiated all period to of inobserved a Besides, were evidence theday.
the with his as There this very is I if a management work called I regard discretionof continuity in he that minutes led effect was tendered upon also by it to ofgood was and the by be of thein On 'What is alternative warnings, employment?, as of recorded infather yourwhile it was the view earlier that fullterms Tribunal. Sanghtan Court back has ofwages reference? Full Vs. held responsible back am S.C. could that being two remember Probationer..... wages not Sharma, in OPW.
betaken such awarded.
years would supporting person 2005 on cases, beof two any LLR record and theIt However, the normal one.is member and275, compensation Irule correct workman beingamifpersonal while of only the of andEX Delhi.
that senior the file.
denying grievance workman as Iparty CW1/X1.
emphasising cannot per wasIPS has beobjecting thatbeen less thatto than inthe ita
2. Copy of memo dated 05/08/99, Ex. WW1/M2.
23.
35. must only
37. service as workman surprising substance cases the Grievance claimed Arguments The following workman where aestablish regularand entireitas which as Committee by full is the and REINSTATEMENT/BACKWAGES or the documents well the found documents were Iback Officer. the hisorder workman. allegations was University committee working asA/R circumstances substantial false have to heard wages the were be dulyIin ex-facie document seen and am stigmatic i.e management at evidence:-
as produced asreceived Ex.
no norms gainful the not involved length named well astatement was doubt WW1/M2, necessitating of aware Probationer as inand .stigmatic as all but nature.
employment the by Ld. Imoral itself rules.
Amar proceed other nothim AR management.the shown as Ex.
the Itturpitude is to consequential at and for Nath but was MW1/1, to that original. the workman departure". would toalso whether decide he further Sharma, betime the bepunitive.
is on Ex.
management Matter alleged the of held considered dated the also benefits.MW1/2
claim part that could was Since totoeven on ofIt again & have had has denythe 3, if short back relief ofterm wages back heemployment would wages With isotherwise at theor discretion regards, was be appointed entitled of to.
the without court, it was followingheld that the it wasproper for
2.
3. Whether Copy of extension the claimantservices Mohand termination At letter Shri atofpage service this workman dated Chaman Chand.
stage ofwas my 14/03/2000, 1this services.
terminated Lal These terminated register Hawaldar two Ex.
It directed is legally is or WW1/M3.
person correct about isIbeing still to that
(s) thebea probationer? back wages The principle to the20.4.01 was Sd/-emphatically workman, it has of this restated been heldregister Gujarat in now, and in North Steel state Tubes Est Karnatka Ltd. Vs.
10.
1. procedure the been suppressed OPM.
basis terminated order the delinquent very adjourned Ex. It Copies WW1/M4, claimant/workman employee The well prayed of was is etc., material further rulefounded called for the official. this to of accordingly. awardproduction services Ex.
material reasons sealed show ofthat complaints upon on stated working were civildocuments on MW1/4, ofThe record, back that the samefull the of came language representatives fact.
on ground the back of therefor. law he in management Ex.
in an was also behalf dated original workman to Ex.
that notthe the wages WW1/M5, know that used envelope. not a of light WW1/M1 college of 07/03/2000, appellant minutes could in because at of management to Grievance gainfully containing contract thethe arguments aproduce Ex.
and not later to order workman. of WW1/M6, had employed of my of be Ex.
the the stage personalhis 01/05/2000, proper.
failed ofWW1/M3 the Principal addressed Grievance Committeethat alleged termination signatures same the afterThe in Ex.on servicethe real misconduct.
his MW1/5and 26/03/01 performance on 29/05/2000, Committee. object of there behalf service termination. cannot to wasand Ex.
the of be
4. 38.19/02/01,Copy Keeping of written inMW1/1view Yours explanation the sincerely, facts and the circumstances workman dated of tokenthis case, 22/06/2000,workman is Ex. Gujarat Road Steel Trasporation Ex.Tubes Meeting Smt. workman bear XXXXxx Vs. to Mazdoormay my Ex.
Aruna M. signature MW1/4.
haveby was Sabha Sitesh Ld. Nagangauda, taken not AR atare (AIR forpoint heard place, still 1980, workman. 2007 I Acan working before SC in LLR 1896), not 340 say,the inof in that I the following even self The WW1/M4. In U.P. initial onus State has any Brasswarewhere.now therefore, I am Corporation shifted nottoaware theVs.workman. Udaiof any Narain suchPandey, 2006 specifically
8. MW1/12.
13.
26. Governing both of purport may gross Management his Management, It Theex-facie parties. negligence is duties for enforced, offer denied andBody which administratively be My then most ofthat stigmatic.
had
in does
findings appointment inon college. Grievance the having handling ofmanagement Nil. also their the not termination the next met on Opportunity limit receipt documents The W/s, Itthis and issue Committee to date isletter see hasthe language aspect. jurisdiction technically. correct thereof.... ever order no.
produced the raised Ex.
of1agreed given". performance would used the was But that only WW1/2,management certain since the It issued, thereunder Reference workman be of the representative to isoriginal dependent withdraw correct documents clause labour preliminary of he two could was may was register clearly that 5,Security the on thencourts. also inprovides challenge my termination question objections; reflect containing had show It findings Guards was tothat the i.e was not statement. present The nor aware.
said statement Management is being mayEX words:
employment
18.
2.
5. awarded which reinstatement would fetch with any continuity earning ofthat to service the employee, and with 50% including back alwaysCopy LLR During 214, It came of the understood evidence, memo Hon'ble to have be issued dated Chokidar of documents (Dr. that workman the Supreme reiterated written Aruna when 20/02/01, to theand workman time Ex.
workman examined Court Sitesh) namesan CW1/Y1. I was Sr. Administrative Officer at mostly Ex.
and order of WW1/M4 WW1/M5. considered anyagain of his were dated himself dutywas retrenchment members, 02/03/01, heard.
hours as various grant writtenWW1 what of were Ex.
The previousby onMW1/5. reinstatement has can been his affidavit judgments declared and firstly including letter on workman same there proceedings minutes it casewas agriculturalissuewas thereafter. ofdated trying that "Traveling of no.
shall something themeeting Deepati pursuits26/03/01.
workman happened to2,claimant be level asThe over onat proceedings me framed Prakash would serious over night.
probation and the Principal" foundation to was As and same be be and showing the by regards IPremjeet it charges adirectly cannot includedabove my was Principal probationer for ofofLd.
ground the one the decided of the say the inrelevant Grievance year Predecessor. misconduct demand Vs. by attendance order assertion that and going 'gainful and totheto same having Satender terminate that notice his Principal thethat Committee through against employment'.ofifbear entire services Asbeen the his the dated Nath such, the work officer everymy the of members disclosed controversy 27/07/01 service Bossworkman were Iprecedent isproceed was not validly by of Nationalfound also, and the to is
6. rendered back 'illegal', Copy wages the by of was same it I memo a say andthe ismatter when dated relevant concluded supposed of I was 01/03/01,time discretion to noti.e that be voidthere Ex.inthere of WW1/M6.
the
the in
year
ab-initio wasthe labour meeting.
2001no and court and binding hence, andnow It is that I precedent inoperative; the order that of the
3. Ex. Copy wages. WW1/A supererogatory of extension and and besides the are signature we letter still college hold helying tendered given atSmt.
the point inby rule the Aruna following workman isA.
office simpleSitesh It of isdated documents the correct thatused college.
20/03/01, the tothat take inItevidence:-
discretion I Ex. MW1/6. to deny Thus, from wrong amthe retired.
to suggest position of that I reinstatementam deposing and falsely.
back wages I being the
7.
33.
the terminated claimant management decide satisfactory, appellant unsuitable since meeting. instead result Copy In reinstatement
28.Centre they issue of is contrast SEE labour for that by of in The holding :courtfor were by thecomplaint that giving no.
probation and Basic or claims the the said to (1) 2 case stated pare should Appointing prior job.
a work is this, employee have one fullregister detailed Sciences;
V.P. at
to
correct
dated
can
to
month's
to
Above
a received document down back show have from later Ahujabe issue be was 15/03/01, the would enquiry the AIRextended Authority, that stage fourth replied mentioned wagesno.
notice directed very Ex.
Vs. applicationbe document 1999 quantum 1.
proceeding the therein class basis CW1/X State in also to by should deemed original SCduring view to ofof tests, the one ofEx.
of be employees and Ex.
983, mind to of more termination same retained WW1/6.
which the always Punjab;
back behowever, order of giving his WW1/M5.probation wages wherein on grievance year.
unsatisfactory vide isthiswas the continuing at bean on (2000) If are isher theheld opportunity their order, record point.during alleged It grantedperiod not absent 3 to entire in letter it SCCexhaustive be till work that was and minutesvitiated when save (Hindustan servicecase further to dated 239year, also that and the of-a for law and (At this have seen the statement on page already stage Ld. AR for management Sh.
1.
4.
39. exceptional automatic Interview Copy Reference of memo reasons." consequence call letter is answered dated hone committee is correct ofdated aand 21/03/01 that she 19/03/99, hasIused accordingly. retrenchment issued have not to Ex.
received been tocollect Award being WW1/1.
thefoundfiled.
workman, isthe false passed. document I report illegal, have ExMW1/7. Copy we of have thecome awarda termination therefore, the is grantRajeev EXCW1/Y1 held to of be theDayal illegal. relief andseeks It it ofclass was permission may held reinstatement be so that to that a and cross personsit full may examine back is have notwages entitled alongwith to get Motors
21.ISSUE management dereliction 24/08/01. his in incumbent orders.
workman law.
the In work Ltd. Vs. Tapan Kumar reported as (2002 6was SCC, 41; Indian the held with -said the alleged This a is No. respect to course case.
upon of not be court isduty 2Grievance probationer to this been heard, very afound the The ofagainst deposed Ex.
thendespite management arguments, language well probationer witness.
in my
the
satisfactory, directed WW1/M6 Committee like management IVwithin with various temporary Allowed. hand used hadSh.
the but itto its was and R.S. employees the regard warnings in have Meeting been ) still right impugned came found services the Vashisth, servant do come reviewedtoto same held not up the and necessary terminate who up is know with can order allegations onSecretary opportunities with by bear also used bethe 20/04/01 the in the terminated by the termination my to entitled found Hon'ble what proceedings to this service be at granted court examined to 10.30 to on Supremebeof order certainthat one ex-
on its amto long
2.
5. be way Then sent to Appointment Copy to inaappropriate of position Mohanlal letter letter written refused against where signature datedVs. bywork government theaward Bharat the 12/04/99, at wouldpoint workman workman of atlawful her for full Electronics, A.....
Ex. home back dated WW1/2.
publication on Itdoisand thewages 1981 23/03/01, correct ultimately basis within has (3) that Ex.
30ofactually SCC, IMW1/8.
days from become
215, the
the
something all benefits Railway Construction only of because continuous XXXXXXX it would service Co.this Vs. meeting be Ajay by Sh. Kumarbe to automatic. Rajeev reportedso.
Dayal, It was asLd. also (2003) acknowledged AR 4 SCC, 579; connection was held. It is correct
14.
24. employees him.
Grievance month's facie their as simply (3) shows rare. CW1.
The stigmatic.
The own Although protection Court principle oftried claim Sh.
and notice.
In R.S.
-it Jaswant Committee Principal and during His wasto reinstatementofVashisth, the since make the used burden services observed itSingh records/complaint. was workman who probation proceedings itwith appointed to would look was Secretary of cannot that full case terminate that like also have proving the beperiod, back should he by-termination as the is been their terminated said itthe being this wages unemployed Appointing have Iis without decision the Principal services have when one issue was beenbest simplicitor ofhas arbitrarily fully again assigning placed personal thealso piece on Authority of been the stands very members coveredor reiteratedthe on ofon cast punitive record any evidence the account denied serviceissued present upon said reason byafter without although and the of in in the case it that ever In since Hindustan for that management KendriyaITin understand Works Vidalaya English Vs. Its very Sangthan employees well. (supra), Some reported body the as onus 1979 to (2) prove SCC
3.
6. M.P.receipt Appointment Copy State of ofElectricitycomplaint letter basis knowledge College.....
datedof false 11/03/01, 21/04/99, ofIt the award. Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141; report.
is the correct allegation Ex. MW1/9.
WW1/3.
that I mentioned
had also filedin
was The
noticed concept
that must
some of Ihave
ofknow
back the Roshangoes
approached wages earlier Lal alongwith judgments claimant, me for had workman assistance reinstatement indicated who thatfora since labour itspeak was court
27.
29.
32. whatsoever. termination it management possession workman is The In However, prescribed the unemployment specifically the meeting. management complying as well. termination being present of letter.
Secondly, management. on most probation with Documents as had onpleaded per its case the civil probation. shifted the letter surprising orderown The also complaint. reference suit period principles of to that dated of or since Toworkman against workman the management my the withhold is 26/03/01 was Ld. admittedly is workman.
of the
workman
It
also mytestimony is over, Predecessor natural is such made Ex.
representative arecorrect termination. gainfully justice the WW1/4 should kind that to absolutely workman a of that dated
- of civil employed court reads dischargeevidence have all Termination suit false 08/06/04.was It the was as witness called is already and under:-
earning did on order probation, not upon Sh.
fabricated. However, order filed makingmore R.S. stating the by in 80, UP the State normal Textile is writing rule present Corporation to a kind grant in court.
ofVs. a reinstatement draft P.C. He and was Chaturvedi I just anwith employee helped reported full him back as of by (2005) wages 8, SCC,was
4.
7.
40.
considered Termination Copy In after weighing view of be to performanceletter ofcontinuation all the the participating complaints wrong dated false facts report and toand26/03/01, suggest of against of in the fabricated the circumstances, that service Ex.
workman, grievance theI WW1/4.
was workman documents itself.
may negligent Ex. committee. However, award MW1/10.
were in the my filed/tenderedin latest trend compensation by in lieu the is Then once management.
writing
again it
in downJ.K. but I
Synthetics I am was notaware Vs. concerned K.P. that Agarwal he about wasthe s. reported as
11.
36. than management the well Vashisth, thatThe acknowledged
34. It workman order allegations view for Rs.
ofisentire Since the the 5000/-
the Executive terminating further the appellant credibility to onpending against Meru the"denied background per place Secretary settled However, respect duties, month.
Screening basis law Yuva "failed the in his ofon him, thethe same therefore, service of by of of himself the Kendra in the wasthe March concerned management. night facts Grievances the he on isrecord previous point,passed.
who the Sangathan performance 26, clearly management Iduties no was was court is 2001 doubtbut not who not suggests except judgments. of neither confirmed". Surrounding shown burden stigmatic Vs. of has thetopresent to histhat one himself Civil that having be prove Mehboob It there and duties in wasJudge present present that its failed inadministratively been Iobserved circumstances effect isatin case to no done, Tisstand termination Alam and the Hazari Office is said that Lasker; this not the by also if of
211).
(2) In Chowkidar.
meeting as such. I am I can not not awaresay name about of any such that
5.
8. even of management reinstatement Letter Copy reinstatement ofdated agendaand back Sh.
24/04/01 appropriate ofis establishment was being wages.
Roshan meeting performing from Lal, proceedings replaced dated management committee.
my by separately 26/03/01, duties are thein compensation.
upholding Ex.dayMW1/11. times.
being the termination, In M/s against initiated Lords Ex.
2007after a LLR protracted 358, time misconducts person the and Chowkidar Hon'ble energy as I doalleged not even Supreme consuming tothe have remember Court litigation been has what noticed during committedactually which the previous period the
15.one
25.
31. Courts. Establishment court same the showing meeting service and As MW1, However, document. of Then could called termination regards was On Sh.
came that has technically"
Thereafter, not for General V.K. Committee leaving this conciliation Statement discharge denied illegal both have production of Nayyar Vol.
ground
- and/or service It been having Besides the wasHaryana aside isThere above existing of was wrong passed proceedings also, not simplicitor of CW1 ever unjustified the theSection isthe based reliefs Roadways in the no to technical is without Grievance attended affidavit suggest being rules present Officer solely would ofonly statutes/rules but also, on any Vs. holding for reproduced the aspects always filed reinstatement that management in claim an Rudhan including order Committee the such in lie Hawaldar Highan management. of and is assessmentis enquiry the hereunderSingh absolutely meeting. upon and stated of Courtconsidering back University.
claims proceedings of and to (2005), Relevant for punitive to be appellant's The theunsatisfactory workman and wages giving have easy It entire inhave not theis5 in as the Homeopathic (2008) 2 SCC Laboratories must by the 479, it have saidletterwas Vs. Roshan held Ms. happened. that Lal Lissyathe Unnikunju in the Being event reported senior of as 2006 IV,
9. the WW1/5.
workman judgments Copy just management of sustains and termination has Indraprastha workman Chaman concludedhimself, officials Lal i.ethat College datedrepresentative ultimately Sh. and award V.K. for 26/03/01, Principalofany Women, Nayyar, is back point toEx.
didbewages Section of College inMW1/12.
not told time.
appear that isOfficer becoming It (Admn.), though herare. willDr. To be SCC, undergone 591. The avide administrative is Hon'ble progressive Shamnath correct Courtthat dilution. officer, listed Marg, Ms. a Aruna In it few was Surender factors Sitesh my duty on was Kumar which to help Principal Verma the or awardVs. of Central back AD maintainable. also duly original portions opportunity documents reference:-
and work stigmatic.
participated denied (Delhi), proceedings it is Supreme andof the his to workman Court to 739, conduct that be cross the broughtorder As alsoabsolutely inworkman theGoverning in an the examination such, during who sheet illegal witness Hon'ble by indicated said the termination comes necessary to proceedings dated Committee body.
probation bebox High management would to background heard 08/05/2000.
for
-There Court court ofread inbetter andservice had the his Termination are and only ofasthey is defence. under:-
been and reasons noof Delhi rendered it the is had For just he rule the constituted. held has appellant also Itdecision the false who that workman for iscited
-filed not same and asserts was only Stigmaticof their aroundreasons, the All without areply fabricated that case the and 20 his quote reinstated, from he performance the will judgment:
by guide thebe Delhi. denied employee, other back officials. the wages termination It is which correct of thatwould probation there bewere due would toterminated him, have beenthe
6.
10. Aruna wages Copy could ofbeletter Sitesh, of Principal/Chairman demand based. college dated grievance complaints notice Some inof 24/04/01, 2001.
dated committee against these 27/07/01, Ex. (at factors&MW1/13.
workman this Sh. Ex.stage in are: the WW1/6.
R.D. witness false andisAdministration areuniversity Verma, Govt. Industrial judgments of the Tribunal, Supreme officials senior 1981 Court to (1) me SCR, andinDelhi 2001 789, High i.e itVicewasCourt held Principal, that to The conclude there may that be in
9. holding allegations dated management where and workman record. Inin 10/07/02 their "Coming punitive. no order any would It enquiry Held made reply stands confronted enquiry to was stating arrive "(Sealed back be
- by on thealso was "It rules.
they the merits, into at wages subjected quite test held with therein is directed workman thecorrect the know Consisting envelope and even governing well to original truth it charges their is ato no admitted ifthat of regarding produce sort explained the of opportunity stand.
the ofofcourt termination EX containing isas six complaint absolutely matter, perthat penalty then WW-
service persons, stigma findspara workman was thatof it for 1/M6). management the rules violative being clause given that two necessaryregister no-fault probation management of from was casted to the onits ofthe was appointed of is toemployees provisions no upon workman directed award his and longer avoided him as back i.e or of to itresisa to
-termination Held -
held to1.beNature Order has justified. been on Principal, the Dear done face Sh.
However, Versor illegally of Roshan itwhen etc. was and Lal,It the is unjustifiably stigmatic foundation obvious andthat and punitive for there as such was such- it Hon'ble an order is he who High isshort not signaturesof employment at point (whether permanent or temporary or
7. Incharge
11. wages, exceptional suitable A.D. Copythe cases Card, of areply question circumstances in Ex.
accordance containing compensationdated WW1/7.
(one) the workman will side 24/08/01 be ofwhether where with pages of law.
should anA appointment arethe false.
to are 1management, to back order be 3only thegranteddemand Itof is letter wages initials isopenedwrong dated reinstatement in three notice, should lieu and atto21/04/99, from ofthis not suggest Ex.
beandstage the the MW1/14.
awarded
reinstatement. full backfully wages or
wholly undeserved. term governing
daily It
wage was body stated
basis of
etc.) that trustees. any other I view can not would say be placing a
16.I.D. only probationer that University be produce heard, Workman he Act partially integra. examine has was as the When any toimpossible prove itRules.
well notisfull but, said (and filed otheralso agiven and thisas signatures Grievance however, the side that principles abe ifThisCW so, disciplinary officer and any rejoinder case workman of proceedings 1not the of of opportunity the where is itshown Ms. Committee of workman denying stands natural percentage).
enquiry
the
the was
management other Aruna management the of isof appointed and justice denied grievance the being register). That initiated way Sitesh Proceedings stand the heard alsohas as round.that depends on usually Principal no-one taken Icommittee come probation the shownhave also histhrough bystand premise Itcase up uponcan and as put seen performance cannot thewith be being denied.
themanagement aTermination thatcondemned becompetent absolutely facts there present for was andare in the may Court an be was unsatisfactory Although held there whether to performance or are wrong is inequitable there various towas in inform on holding e.g., recent any the you part when it that judgments specific ofas the non-stigmatic the legal your employee industry of the advisor might for Hon'ble of -but have overt Supremeclosedacts
2. Method while of selection and employment.
8.
12. premium Postal Copy Fileon circumstances beof receipt, an postal of theEx. unwarranted cosigned the have tomarking receipt, for one minutes each WW1/8. confirmation one recordSecretary not case, Exyear ofbeen litigative the MW1/15.
Grievance any room. from was post.
filed who activity income 26/04/99.
placed intentionally Committee preside ofbefore receivedthe (Ld.Itemployer.
is over by AR Meetings the correct as the theOffice for employee during
3. Length the management management ofcontents service. is or directed not. to It has place been the very long
12.
22. the down Courtsatisfactory.
and false officer unheard the Itmeeting, The reiterating relevant serious orand is and granting management order couldminutes further and manipulated might management which period allegations not even to the According stated be small of pasted show have that meeting. workman meeting on of in has amount though that documents. inwhat vide accountwas misconduct severe that Establishment been theto termination theof in Itof they passed was also has management, the is letter of register correct happened financialclaim not original directed on dated presented alternative compensation were termination Committee without at the ofpage as that service part register being to doldrums admittedlywas on in he holding 14/03/2000, representative 2produce of the usedthere true of employment and ranging legal 26/03/2001. Ioriginal present were state the to and the and delinquent or still a and be where regular from in that tendered the or justified on claimant/probationer correct. service case.
the frequently of Rs.
enquiry Termination through rules business officer the service 10,000/-
but since absent of itand concerned of isisSh.
the hisa to the for the However, amounting 4. Time to in time.elapsedthe misconduct, same There after judgment, an may his opportunity have termination. deviation been. of It from hearing is wrong this to to rule the was employee also
9. Announced
20. relevant UPC, Besides, factor Ex. record in management WW1/9.
to
the be
itopen takenin isproceedings probation the thenote workman certainly court course also period were ofnot ofcontaining confronted are while the included biased. day). ofawardingthethe ItImy inworkman theam workman, notwages, is signatures back grievance wrong aware was during to in addition his cross to employeenone 25,000/-, would of have these suggest secured judgments that for anthe employment lay down reason any that else formula there where.
were or By the very guidelines other to tone arrive
17.
30. from was R.S. employees, of recognized Today the service On During referred onVashisth, several explanation dutythe and ofcourse and basis 01/10/2008 factorsitabout all tothe thereSecretary the otherwise was anythis of workman of The contents extended committee suggest duly thefinal vide observed mentioned upon pleadings, constituted who has
- committee where of arguments, also is order that forwas held that in itbeen EX hisone MW-
examined dated workman order following to work Grievance Rudhan Iyear.
itwas be rejected, decided 1/M6.
transpired illegal 08/05/08. was tonot It as Singh toissues prove not servicesVol. Committee is CW1 as pursuant correct that Being satisfactory. well were effective (supra). terminate with While Grievance as were framed that and respect thereto at unjustified.
the the Therefore, your aItCommittee by terms to Grievance isrelevant full the myfurther Issue itsaid and Ld. scale is Inthereof. present in any management the order workman was and to show even that otherwise was could not legal have and been justified. summoned The by the concerned isstigmatic imperative. senior officers Departmental other to me,(SUJATA thereenquiry words, was no was ifKOHLI) the employee need necessary.
for meistofound While to have the necessary
19.no.
and at clarified Committee Predecessor examination, record.
portions observation committed formal proceedings conditions management tenor the "In the Management, It 2 said iswas for enquiry of decided of The thatvery the the held cross in of misconduct of amount.on which with nature employee such resolution senior guide to judgment, the its Hon'ble 08/06/2004:-
service has against prove thatservices, examination meeting on certain thereafter of meeting representation terminated probation was been post in other the the High However,the things, statedto tendered and it case giving although plead ,initiated, documents other these was endorsed alleged management Court there officials.
the conduct period of Iof illegally". the toimplied inhand, kind workmanthat J.U. period be by youam workman cannot culminating proceedings. an inthe the the being ofthat he AdditionalAkhtar abasis examined rules that order witness was absolutely documents of and month's termination the workman. are case Vol.
as be probation the in has workman of not under:-
being arendered District terminating favour onus in was was Iastraight Vs. gainfully termination As University Sh. notice neverunaware Management & finding reproduced regards that to exhibit order Iwas was V.K. ofdo prove was the jaclet Sessions w.e.f.
went not of employed aprobation the Nayyar, of as the impugned workman. order being long the formula Judge Non-Academic theguilt; Ex.hereunder:- proceedings exceptional appointing had period CW1/X1.
extended that Sectionfrom ofwould M/s never order for the of the date of relief awarding his termination----.
through ofabout 26.3.2001 administrative extended remember back methis atso wages. in called any head. view as stage. more.
Allto Itofrelevant is your Presiding when It isunsatisfactory wrong meeting. Officer wrong to the suggest considerations The date to Labour suggest resolution work theCourt-II, that Iwill enter the service circumstances Markfed and Agro the time would reported andelapsed be on as after the 2006 dereliction his employer. VIII oftermination AD However, (Delhi) duty, despite Karkardooma was 33, insmaller the Kendriya Hon'ble repeated Courts, in comparison, DelhiVidyalya High
1. before because authority Officer Statement was appear order been Employees verdict. To Copy What not produced ofwhat the to (Admn.) More ISSUE No. 1(Relief)of termination stigmatic of emerges and at Establishment behis were letter relief, page that am or innocuous work the by tendered by the management at this stage is may as produced lessdeposing dated 1 I the if grievance from "It upon letter MW1 of being am itof any, Maximum management the is21/04/99, service would the deposing this, itself, Committee dated is correct register on unsatisfactory on falsely the pleadings his committee beHon'ble thewould the workman 24/04/01 a affidavit period Ex.
that next ison falsely. on same Ex.
it motion WW1/M1.
be ground never its Supreme and I date, of CW1/1.
and was held entitled would own was Ex.
probation the Vol.
only saw addressednot MW1/A. of stigmatic. appointed nor issued over constituted. Court be light because I sympathy. against a they am photocopy vitiated all period to of inobserved a Besides, were evidence theday.
the his as There this very is I if a management work called I regard discretionof in hethat minutes led effect was tendered upon also by it to ofgoodwas and the by be of thein On 'What is alternative warnings, employment?, as of recorded infather yourwhile it was the view earlier that fullterms Tribunal. Sanghtan Court back has ofwages reference? Full Vs. held responsible back am S.C. could that being two remember Probationer..... wages not Sharma, in OPW.
betaken such awarded.
years would supporting person 2005 on cases, beof two any LLR record and theIt However, the normal one.is member and275, compensation Irule correct workman beingamifpersonal while of only the of andEX Delhi.
that senior the file.
denying grievance workman as Iparty CW1/X1.
emphasising cannot per wasIPS has beobjecting thatbeen less thatto than inthe ita
2. Copy of memo dated 05/08/99, Ex. WW1/M2.
23.
35. must only
37. as claimed workman surprising substance cases the Grievance Arguments The following workman where aestablish regular entireitas which as Committee by is REINSTATEMENT/BACKWAGESthe and or the documents well the found documents werehisorder workman. allegations was University committee working asA/R Icircumstances Officer.
the substantial
false
have to
heard
the
were
be
dulyIin
ex-facie document seen and am stigmatic i.e management at evidence:-
produced asreceived Ex.
no norms gainful the not involved length named astatement was doubt WW1/M2, necessitating of aware Probationer inand .stigmatic as but nature.
employment the by Ld. Imoral itself rules.
Amar proceed nothim AR management.the shown as Ex.
the Itturpitude is at and for Nath but was to MW1/1, to that original. the workman departure". would toalso whether decide he further Sharma, betime the bepunitive.
is on Ex.
management Matter alleged the of held considered dated the also MW1/2 claim part that could was Since totoeven on ofagain & have had denythe 3, if short back relief ofterm wages back heemployment would wages With isotherwise at theor discretion regards, was be appointed entitled of to.
the without court, it was followingheld that the it wasproper for
2.
3. Whether Copy of extension the claimantservices Mohand termination At letter Shri atofpage service this workman dated Chaman Chand.
stage ofwas my 14/03/2000, 1this services.
terminated Lal These terminated register Hawaldar two Ex.
It directed is legally is or WW1/M3.
person correct about isIbeing still to that
(s) thebea probationer? back wages The principle to the20.4.01 was Sd/-emphatically workman, it has of this restated been heldregister Gujarat in now, and in North Steel state Tubes Est Karnatka Ltd. Vs.
10.
1. procedure the suppressed OPM.
basis terminated order the delinquent very adjourned Ex. It Copies WW1/M4, claimant/workman employee The well of was is etc., material further rulefounded called for the official. this to of awardproduction services Ex.
material reasons sealed show ofthat complaints upon on stated working were civildocuments on MW1/4, ofThe record, back that the samefull the of came language representatives fact.
on ground the back of therefor. law he in management Ex.
in an was also behalf dated original workman to Ex.
the that notthe wages WW1/M5, know that used envelope. not a of light WW1/M1 college of 07/03/2000, appellant minutes could in because at of management to Grievance gainfully containing contract thethe arguments aproduce Ex.
and not later to order workman. of WW1/M6, had employed of my of be Ex.
the the stage personalhis 01/05/2000, proper.
failed ofWW1/M3 the Principal addressed Grievance Committeethat alleged termination signatures same the afterThe in Ex.on servicethe real misconduct.
his MW1/5and 26/03/01 performance on 29/05/2000, Committee. object of there behalf termination.
cannot service to wasand Ex.
the of be
4. 38.19/02/01,Copy Keeping of written inMW1/1view Yours explanation the sincerely, facts and the circumstances workman dated of tokenthis case, 22/06/2000,workman is Ex. Gujarat Road Steel Trasporation Ex.Tubes Meeting Smt. workman bear XXXXxx Vs. to Mazdoormay my Ex.
Aruna M. signature MW1/4.
havebywas Sabha Sitesh Ld. Nagangauda, taken not AR atare (AIR forpoint heard place, still 1980, workman. 2007 I Acan working before SC in LLR 1896), not 340 say,the inof in that I the following even self The WW1/M4. In U.P. initial onus State has any Brasswarewhere.now therefore, I am Corporation shifted nottoaware theVs.workman. Udaiof any Narain suchPandey, 2006 specifically
13.MW1/12.
26. Governing both of purport may gross Management his Itex-facie The parties.
negligence is duties for enforced, offer denied andBody which administratively be My then most ofthat stigmatic.
had
in does
findings appointment on college. Grievance the having handling ofmanagement Nil. also the not termination the next met on Opportunity limit receipt documents TheItthis and issue Committee to date isletter seethe language aspect. jurisdiction technically. correct thereof.... ever order no.
produced the Ex.
of1agreed given". performance would used the was But that only WW1/2,management since the It issued, thereunder Reference workman be of the representative to isoriginal dependent withdraw correct documents clause of he two labour could was may was register clearly that 5,Security the on thencourts. also inprovides challenge my termination question reflect containing had show It findings Guards was tothat the i.e was not statement. present The nor aware.
said statement Management is being mayEX words:
employment
18.
2.
5. awarded which reinstatement would fetch with any continuity earning ofthat to service the employee, and with 50% including back alwaysCopy LLR During 214, It came of the understood evidence, memo Hon'ble to have be issued dated Chokidar of documents (Dr. that workman the Supreme reiterated written Aruna when 20/02/01, to theand workman time Ex.
workman examined Court Sitesh) namesan CW1/Y1. I was Sr. Administrative Officer at mostly Ex.
and order of WW1/M4 WW1/M5. considered anyagain of his were dated himself dutywas retrenchment members, 02/03/01, heard.
hours as various grant writtenWW1 what of were Ex.
The previousby onMW1/5. reinstatement has can been his affidavit judgments declared and including letter on workman same there proceedings minutes it casewas agriculturalissuewas thereafter. ofdated trying "Traveling of no.
shall something themeeting Deepati pursuits26/03/01.
happened to2,claimant be level asThe over onat proceedings me framed Prakash would serious over night.
probation and the Principal" foundation to As and same be be and showing the by regards IPremjeet it charges directly cannot above my was Principal for ofofLd.
ground included the one the decided of the say the inrelevant Grievance year Predecessor. misconduct demand Vs. by attendance order assertion that and going 'gainful and totheto same having Satender terminate that notice Principal thethat Committee through against employment'.ofifbear entire Asbeen the his the dated Nath such, the work officer everymy the of members disclosed controversy 27/07/01 service Bossworkman Iprecedent isproceed was not Nationalby of found also, and the to is
6. rendered back 'illegal', Copy wages the by of was same it I memo a say andthe ismatter when dated relevant concluded supposed of I was 01/03/01,time discretion to noti.e that be voidthere Ex.inthere of WW1/M6.
the
the in
year
ab-initio wasthe labour meeting.
2001no and court and binding hence, andnow It is that I precedent inoperative; the order that of the
3. Ex. Copy wages. WW1/A supererogatory of extension and and besides the are signature we letter still college hold helying tendered given atSmt.
the point inby rule the Aruna following workman isA.
office simpleSitesh It of isdated documents the correct thatused college.
20/03/01, the tothat take inItevidence:-
discretion I Ex. MW1/6. to deny Thus, from wrong amthe retired.
to suggest position of that I reinstatementam deposing and falsely.
back wages I being the
7.
33.
the claimant management decide satisfactory, appellant unsuitable since meeting. instead result Copy In reinstatement
28.Centre they issue of is contrast SEE labour for that by of in The holding :courtfor were thecomplaint that giving no.
probation and Basic or claims the said to (1) 2 case stated pare should prior job.
a work is this, employee have one fullregister detailed Sciences;
V.P. at
to
correct
dated
can
to
month's
to
Above
a received document down back show have from later Ahujabe issue be was 15/03/01, the would enquiry the extended AIR that stage fourth replied mentioned no.
notice wages directed very Ex.
Vs. application be document 1999 quantum 1.
proceeding the therein class basis CW1/X State in also to by should deemed original SC view to ofoftests, the one of Ex.
of be employees and Ex.
983, mind to of more termination same retained WW1/6.
which always Punjab;
back behowever, order of giving his WW1/M5.
wages wherein on grievance year.
unsatisfactory vide isthiswas the continuing at bean on (2000) If are isher theheld opportunity their order, record point.during alleged It granted not absent 3 to entire in letter it SCCexhaustive be till work that was minutesvitiated when save (Hindustan servicecase further to dated 239year, also and the of-a for law and (At this have seen the statement on page already stage Ld. AR for management Sh.
1.
4.
39. exceptional automatic Interview Copy Reference of memo reasons." consequence call letter is answered dated hone committee is correct ofdated aand 21/03/01 that she 19/03/99, hasIused accordingly. retrenchment issued have not to Ex.
received been tocollect Award being WW1/1.
thefoundfiled.
workman, isthe false passed. document I report illegal, have ExMW1/7. Copy we of have thecome awarda termination therefore, the is grantRajeev EXCW1/Y1 held to of be theDayal illegal. relief andseeks Itit ofclasswas permission may held reinstatement be so that to that a and cross personsit full may examine back is have notwages entitled alongwith to get Motors
21.ISSUE dereliction 24/08/01. his in incumbent orders.
workman law.
the In work Ltd. Vs. Tapan Kumar reported as (2002 6was SCC, 41; Indian the held with -said the alleged This a is No. respect to course case.
upon of not be courtduty 2Grievance probationer to this been heard, afound the The ofagainst deposed Ex.
thendespite management arguments, language probationer witness.
in my
the
satisfactory, directed WW1/M6 Committee like management IVwith various used temporary Allowed. hand hadSh.
the but itto was and R.S. employees the regard warnings in have Meeting been ) still impugned came found services the Vashisth, servant do come reviewedto same held not up the and necessary who up is know with can order allegations onSecretary opportunities with by bear also used bethe 20/04/01 the in the terminated bytermination my to entitled found Hon'ble what proceedings to this be at granted court examined to to 10.30 on Supremebe order certainthat one ex-
on amto long
2.
5. be way Then sent to Appointment Copy to inaappropriate of position Mohanlal letter letter written refused against where signature datedVs. bywork government theaward Bharat the 12/04/99, at would point workman workman of atlawful her for full Electronics, A.....
Ex. home back dated WW1/2.
publication on Itdoisand thewages 1981 23/03/01, correct ultimately basis within has (3) that Ex.
30ofactually SCC, IMW1/8.
days from become
215, the
the
something all benefits Railway Construction only of because continuous XXXXXXX it would service Co.this Vs. meeting be Ajay by Sh. Kumarbe to automatic. Rajeev reportedso.
Dayal, It was asLd. also (2003) acknowledged AR 4 SCC, 579; connection was held. It is correct
14.
24. him.
Grievance month's facie their as simply (3) shows rare. CW1.
The stigmatic.
The own Although protection Court principle oftried claim Sh.
and notice.
In R.S.
-it Jaswant Committee Principal and His wasto reinstatementofVashisth, the since make the used burden services observed itSingh records/complaint. was workman who proceedings itwith appointed to would look was Secretary of cannot that full case terminate that like also have proving the be back should he by-termination as the is been their terminated said itthe being this wages unemployed Appointing have Iis issue decision the Principal services have when one was beenbest simplicitor ofhas arbitrarily fully again placed personal thealso piece on Authority of the stands very members been coveredor reiteratedthe on ofon cast punitive record evidence the account denied serviceissued present upon said although byafter without and the of in in the case it that ever In since Hindustan for that management KendriyaITin understand Works Vidalaya English Vs. Its very Sangthan employees well. (supra), Some reported body the as onus 1979 to (2) prove SCC
3.
6. M.P.receipt Appointment Copy State of ofElectricitycomplaint letter basis knowledge College.....
datedof false 11/03/01, 21/04/99, ofIt the award. Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141;report.
is the correct allegation Ex. MW1/9.
WW1/3.
that I mentioned
had also filedin
was The
noticed concept
that must
some of Ihave
ofknow
back the Roshangoes
approached wages earlier Lal alongwith judgments claimant, me for had workman assistance reinstatement indicated who thatfora since labour itspeak was court
27.
29.
32. termination it management possession workman is The In However, prescribed the specifically the meeting. management unemployment complying as well. termination being present of letter.
management. on most probation with Documents as had on perpleaded its case the civil probation. shifted the letter surprising orderown The also complaint.
suit period principles of to that dated of or since Toworkman against workman the management my the withhold is 26/03/01 was Ld. admittedly workman.
of the workman It mytestimony is over, Predecessor natural is such Ex.
representative arecorrect termination. gainfully justice the WW1/4 should kind that absolutely workman of that dated
- of employed court reads dischargeevidence have all Terminationfalse 08/06/04.was It the was as witness called isunder:-
and earning did on order probation, not upon Sh.
fabricated. However, order makingmore R.S. stating the in 80, UP the State normal Textile is writing rule present Corporation to a kind grant in court.
ofVs. a reinstatement draft P.C. He and was Chaturvedi I just anwith employee helped reported full him back as of by (2005) wages 8, SCC,was
4.
7.
40.
considered Termination Copy In after weighing view of be to performanceletter ofcontinuation all the the participating complaints wrong dated false facts report and toand26/03/01, suggest of against of in the fabricated the circumstances, that service Ex.
workman, grievance theI WW1/4.
was workman documents itself.may negligent Ex. committee. However, award MW1/10.
were in the my filed/tenderedin latest trend compensation by in lieu the is Then once management.
writing
again it
in downJ.K. but I
SyntheticsI am was notaware Vs. concerned K.P. that Agarwal he about wasthe s. reported as
11.
36. than management the well Vashisth, thatThe acknowledged
34. It order allegations view for Rs.
ofisentire Since the the 5000/-
the Executive terminating further the appellant credibility on against settled Meru the"denied toSecretary background per place However, respect duties, month.
Screening basis law Yuva "failed the his ofonhimself him, the same therefore, service of by of of the Kendra in the wasthe March management. night facts Grievances the he on isrecord previous point,passed.
who clearly management Iduties no was the Sangathan performance 26, was 2001 isdoubtbut notwho not suggests except judgments. neither confirmed". Surrounding shown burden stigmatic Vs. of has topresent to histhat one himself that having be prove Mehboob It there and duties in was present present that its failed inadministratively been Iobserved circumstances effect is in case to no done, termination Alam stand and the Office is said that Lasker; this not the by also if of
211).
(2) In Chowkidar.
meeting as such. I am I can not not aware say name about of any such that
5.
8. even of management reinstatement Letter Copy reinstatement ofdated agendaand back Sh.
24/04/01 appropriate ofis establishment was being wages.
Roshan meeting performing from proceedingsreplaced Lal,dated management committee.
my by separately 26/03/01, duties are thein compensation.
upholding Ex.dayMW1/11. times.
being the termination, In M/s against initiated Lords Ex.
2007after a LLR protracted 358, time misconducts person the and Chowkidar Hon'ble energy as I doalleged not evenSupreme consuming tothe have remember Court litigation been has what noticed during committedactually which the previous period the
15.one
25.
31. Establishment court same the showing meeting service and As MW1, However, document. of Then could called termination regards was Sh.
came that has technically"
Thereafter, not for General V.K. Committee leaving conciliation Statement discharge denied illegal both have production of Nayyar Vol.
- and/or service It been having Besides the wasHaryana aside isThere above existing of was wrong passed proceedings not simplicitor of CW1 ever unjustified the theSection isthe based reliefs Roadways in no to technical is without Grievance attended affidavit suggest being rules Officer solely would ofonly statutes/rules but also, on any Vs. holding for reproduced the aspects always filed reinstatement that management inansuch Rudhan including order Committee the in lie Hawaldar Highan management. of and is assessment enquiry the hereunderSingh absolutely meeting.
upon
and of
Courtconsidering back University.
claims proceedings of and The theunsatisfactory workman and wages (2005), Relevant for punitive to appellant'sgiving have easy It entire inhave theis5 in as the Homeopathic (2008) 2 SCC Laboratories must by the 479, it have saidletterwas Vs. Roshan held Ms. happened. that Lal Lissyathe Unnikunju in the Being event reported senior of as 2006 IV,
9. the WW1/5.
workman judgments Copy just management of sustains and termination has Indraprastha workman Chaman concludedhimself, officials i.eLal that College datedrepresentative and ultimately Sh. award V.K. for 26/03/01, Principalofany Women, Nayyar, is back point toEx.
didbewages Section of College inMW1/12.
not told time.
appear that isOfficer becoming It (Admn.), though herare. willDr. To be SCC, undergone 591. The avide administrative is Hon'ble progressive Shamnath correct Courtthat dilution. officer, listed Marg, Ms. a Aruna In it few was Surender factors Sitesh my duty on was Kumar which to help Principal Verma the or awardVs. of Central back AD also duly original portions opportunity documents reference:-
and work stigmatic.
participated denied (Delhi), proceedings it is Supreme andof the his to workman Court to 739, conduct that be cross the broughtorder As alsoabsolutely inworkman theGoverning in an the examination such, during who sheet illegal witness Hon'ble by indicated said the termination comes necessary to proceedings dated Committee body.
probationbebox High managementwould to background heard 08/05/2000.
for
-There Court court ofread inbetter andservice had the his Termination are and only ofasthey is defence. under:-
been and reasons noof Delhi rendered it the is had For just he rule the constituted. held has appellant also Itdecision the false who that workman for iscited
-filed not same and asserts was only of Stigmatictheir around reasons, the All without areply fabricated that case the and 20 his quote reinstated, from he performance the will judgment:
by guide thebe Delhi. denied employee, other back officials. the wages termination It is which correct of thatwould probation there bewere due would toterminated him, have beenthe
6.
10. Aruna wages Copy could ofbeletter Sitesh, of Principal/Chairman demand based. college dated grievance complaints notice Some inof 24/04/01, 2001.
dated committee against these 27/07/01, Ex. (at factors&MW1/13.
workman this Sh. Ex.stage in are: the WW1/6.
R.D. witness false andisAdministration areuniversity Verma, Govt. Industrial judgments of the Tribunal, Supreme officials senior 1981 Court to (1) me SCR, andinDelhi 2001 789, High i.e itVicewasCourt held Principal, that to The conclude there may that be in allegations dated management where and holding workman record. in 10/07/02 "Coming punitive. no order any would It enquiry Held made stands confronted enquiry to was stating arrive "(Sealed back be
- by thealso was "It rules.
they the into at wages subjected quite test with therein is held directed workman thecorrect the know even governing well to original Consisting envelope and truth charges their ato noifthat of regarding produce sort explained the of opportunity stand.
the ofofcourt termination EX containing isas six complaint absolutely matter, per penalty then WW-
service persons, stigma findsparawas thatof it for 1/M6). management the rules violative being clause given that two necessaryregister no-fault probation management of from casted to the onits ofthe was of is toemployees provisions no upon workman hisdirected award and longer avoided him back i.e or of to itresis to
-termination Held -
held to1.beNature Order has justified. been on Principal, the Dear done face Sh.
However, Versor illegally of Roshan itwhen etc. was and Lal,It the is unjustifiably stigmatic foundation obvious andthat and punitive for there as such was such- it Hon'ble an order is he who High isshort not signaturesof employment at point (whether permanent or temporary or
7. Incharge
11. wages, exceptional suitable A.D. Copythe cases Card, of areply question circumstances in Ex.
accordance containing compensationdated WW1/7.
(one) the workman will side 24/08/01 be ofwhether where with pages of law.
should anA appointment arethe false.
to are 1management, to back order be 3only thegranteddemand Itof is letter wages initials isopenedwrong dated reinstatement in three notice, should lieu and atto21/04/99, from ofthis not suggest Ex.
beandstage the the MW1/14.
awarded
reinstatement. full backfully wages or
wholly undeserved. term governing
daily It
wage was body stated
basis of
etc.) that trustees. any other I view can not would say be placing a
16.I.D. only that University be produce heard, Workman he Act partially integra. examine has was as the When any toimpossible prove itRules.
well notisfull said (and filed otheralso agiven and thisas signatures Grievance the side that principles abe ifThisCW so, disciplinary officer and any rejoinder case workman of proceedings 1not the of of opportunity the where is shown Ms. Committee of workman denying natural percentage).
enquiry
the
the was
management other Aruna management the of isof appointed and justice grievance the being register). That initiated way Sitesh Proceedings stand the heard alsohas as depends round.on usually Principal no-one taken Icommittee come probation the shownhave also through bystand premise Itcase up uponcan and as put seen cannot thewith be being denied.
themanagement aTermination thatcondemned be competent absolutely facts there present for andare in the may Court an be was unsatisfactory Although held there whether to performance or are wrong is inequitable there various towas in inform on holding e.g., recent any the you part when it that judgments specific ofas the non-stigmatic the legal your employee industry of the advisor might for Hon'ble of -but have overt Supremeclosedacts
2. Method while of selection and employment.
8.
12. premium Postal Copy Fileon circumstances beof receipt, an postal of theEx. unwarranted cosigned the have tomarking receipt, for one minutes each WW1/8. confirmation one recordSecretary not case, Exyear ofbeen litigative the MW1/15.
Grievance any room. from was post.
filed who activity income 26/04/99.
placed intentionally Committee preside ofbefore receivedthe (Ld.Itemployer.
is over by AR Meetings the correct as the theOffice for employee during
3. Length the management management ofcontents service. is or directed not. to It has place been the very long
12.
22. the down Courtand false officer unheard serious the Itmeeting, The reiterating relevant or management order and is and minutes further and manipulated allegations granting couldmight management which period not even to the stated be small of pasted show have that meeting. workman meeting on of in has that amount though documents.
inwhat vide accountwas misconduct severe that Establishment been thetermination theof in Itof they passed was also has the is letter of register correct happened financialclaim not original directed on were termination dated presented alternative compensation Committee without at the ofpage as that service part register being to doldrums admittedlywas on in14/03/2000, holding representative 2produce of the there true of employment and ranging legal 26/03/2001. Ioriginal present were state theand the and delinquent or still a and where regular from in that tendered the or justified on claimant/probationer correct. service case.
theof Rs. enquiry Termination through rules business officer the service 10,000/-
but of itand concerned since of isisSh.
the hisa to the for the However, amounting 4. Time to in time.elapsedthe misconduct, same There after judgment, an may his opportunity have termination. deviation been. of It from hearing is wrong this to to rule the was employee also
9. Announced
20. relevant UPC, Besides, factor Ex. record in management WW1/9.
to
the be
itopen takenin isproceedings probation the thenote workman certainly court course also period were ofnot ofcontaining confronted are while the included biased. day). ofawardingthethe ItImy inworkman theam workman, notwages, is signatures back grievance wrong aware was during to in addition his cross to employeenone 25,000/-, would of have these suggest secured judgments that for an the employment lay down reason any that else formula there where.
were or By the very guidelines other to tone arrive
17.
30. was R.S. employees, of recognized Today the service On During referred onVashisth, several explanation the and ofcourse basis 01/10/2008 factorsitabout all tothe thereSecretary the was anythis of workman of The contents extended committee suggest duly thefinal vide observed mentioned upon pleadings, constituted who has
- committee where of arguments, is order that for thatinEX was held itbeen one MW-
examined dated workman order following toGrievance Rudhan Iyear.
itwas be rejected, decided 1/M6.
transpired illegal 08/05/08. tonot It as Singh toissues prove servicesVol. Committee is CW1 as pursuant correct that well were Being effective (supra). terminate with While Grievance as were framed that and respect thereto at unjustified.
the the Therefore, your aCommittee by terms to Grievance full the my byIssueitsaid and Ld. scale is Inthereof. present in any management the order workman was and to show even that otherwise was could not legal have and been justified. summoned The relevant the concerned isstigmatic imperative. senior officers Departmental other to me,(SUJATA thereenquiry words, was no was ifKOHLI) the employee need necessary.
for meistofound While to have the necessary
19.no.
and at Committee Predecessor examination, record.
portions observation committed formal proceedings conditions management tenor the It 2 said "In the iswas for Management, enquiry of decided of The very the the held cross in of misconduct of amount.on which with nature employee such resolution senior guide to judgment, its Hon'ble services, 08/06/2004:-
service has against prove that examination meeting on certain thereafter of meeting representation terminated was been post in other the the High However,the things, statedto tendered and it case giving although plead ,initiated, documents other these was endorsed alleged management Court there officials.
the
conduct
of Iof
illegally". the toimplied inhand, kind workmanthat J.U. you period be by am workman cannot culminating proceedings. an inthe the the being ofthathe AdditionalAkhtar abasis examined rules that order was absolutely month's witness documents of and termination workman. are case Vol.
as be probation the in has of not under:-
being arendered District terminating favour onus in was was Iastraight Vs. gainfully notice termination As University Sh. neverunaware Management & finding reproduced regards that to exhibit order Iwas was V.K. ofdo provethe jaclet Sessions w.e.f.
went not of employed aprobation the Nayyar, of as the impugned workman. order long the formula Judge Non-Academic theguilt; Ex.hereunder:- proceedings exceptional appointing had period CW1/X1.
that Sectionfrom ofwould M/s never order for the of the date of relief awarding his termination----.
through ofabout 26.3.2001 administrative extended remember back methis atso wages. in called any head. view as stage. more.
Allto Itofrelevant is your Presiding whenIt isunsatisfactory wrong meeting. Officer wrong to the suggest considerations The date to Labour suggest resolution work theCourt-II, that Iwill enter the service circumstances Markfed and Agro the time would reported andelapsed be on as after the 2006 dereliction his employer. VIII oftermination AD duty, However, (Delhi) despite Karkardooma was 33, insmaller the Kendriya Hon'ble repeated Courts, in comparison, Vidyalya Delhi High
1. before authority Officer Statement was appear order been Employees verdict. To Copy What not produced ofwhat the to (Admn.) More ISSUE No. 1(Relief)termination stigmatic of emerges and at Establishment be were letter relief, page that am or innocuous the by tendered by the management at this stage is may as produced lessdeposing dated 1 I the if grievance from "It upon letter MW1 ofam itof any, Maximum management the is21/04/99, service would the deposing this, itself, Committee dated is correct register onon falsely the pleadings his committee beHon'ble thewould the workman 24/04/01 a affidavit period Ex.
that next ison falsely. on same Ex.
it motion WW1/M1.
be ground never its Supreme and I date, of CW1/1.
was held entitled would own was Ex.
probation the Vol.
only saw addressed MW1/A. of stigmatic. appointed nor issued over constituted. Court be light I sympathy. against a they am photocopy vitiated all period to of inobserved a Besides, were evidence theday.
the as There this very is I if a management called I regard of discretionin hethat minutes led effect tendered upon also by it to of was and the by be of thein On 'What is alternative warnings, employment?, as of recorded infather yourwhile it was the view earlier that fullterms Tribunal. Sanghtan Court backhas ofwages reference? Full Vs. held responsible back am S.C. could that being two remember Probationer..... wages not Sharma, in OPW.
betaken such awarded.
years would supporting person 2005 on cases, beof two any LLR record and theIt However, the normal one.is member 275, and compensation Irule correct workman beingamifpersonal while of only the of andEX Delhi.
that senior the file.
denying grievance workman as Iparty CW1/X1.
emphasising cannot per wasIPS has beobjecting thatbeen less thatto than inthe ita
2. Copy of memo dated 05/08/99, Ex. WW1/M2.
23.
35. must only
37. workman surprising substance cases the Grievance Arguments The following workman where aestablish regular entireitas which as Committee is the and REINSTATEMENT/BACKWAGES or the documents well found documents werehisorder allegations was University committee working asA/R Icircumstances Officer.
the substantial
false
have to
heard
the
were
be
dulyIin
ex-facie document seen and am stigmatic i.e management at evidence:-
produced asreceived Ex.
no norms gainful the not involved length named astatement was doubt WW1/M2, necessitating of aware Probationer inand .stigmatic as but nature.
employment the by Ld. Imoral itself rules.
Amar proceed not him ARthe management.
shown as Ex.
the Itturpitude is at and for Nath but was to MW1/1, to that original. the workman departure". would toalso whether decide he further Sharma, betime the bepunitive.
is on Ex.
management Matter alleged the of held considered dated the also MW1/2 claim part that could was Since totoeven on ofagain & have had denythe 3, if short back relief term wages of back heemployment would wages With isotherwise at theor discretion regards, was be appointed entitled of to.
the without court, it was followingheld that the it wasproper for
2.
3. Whether Copy of extension the claimantservices Mohand termination At letter Shri atofpage service this workman dated Chaman Chand.
stage ofwas my 14/03/2000, 1this services.
terminated Lal These terminated register Hawaldar two Ex.
It directed is legally is or WW1/M3.
person correct aboutisIbeing still to that
(s) thebea probationer? back wages The principle to the20.4.01 was Sd/-emphatically workman, it has of this restated been heldregister Gujarat in now, and in North Steel state Tubes Est Karnatka Ltd. Vs.
1. procedure the suppressed OPM.
basis terminated order the delinquent very adjourned Ex. Copies WW1/M4, claimant/workman employee Thewell of was etc., material rulefounded called for the official. this to of awardproduction services Ex.
material reasons sealed show ofthat complaints upon on working were civildocuments on MW1/4, ofThe record, back that the samefull the of came language representatives fact.ground the back of therefor. law he in management Ex.
in an was also dated original workman to Ex.
the that notthe wages WW1/M5, know that used envelope. not a of light WW1/M1 college 07/03/2000, appellant minutes could in because at of to Grievance gainfully containing contract the the arguments aproduce Ex.
and not later to order workman. of WW1/M6, had employed of my of be Ex.
the the stage personalhis 01/05/2000, proper.
failed ofWW1/M3 the Principal addressed Grievance Committeealleged termination signatures same the afterThe in Ex.
servicethe real misconduct.
his MW1/5and performance on 29/05/2000, Committee. object of there behalf termination. cannot service to wasand Ex.
of be
4. 38.19/02/01,Copy Keeping of written inMW1/1view Yours explanation the sincerely, facts and the circumstances workman dated of tokenthis case, 22/06/2000,workman is Ex. Gujarat Road Steel TrasporationEx.Tubes Meeting Smt. workman bear XXXXxx Vs. to Mazdoormay my Ex.
Aruna M. signature MW1/4.
havebywas Sabha Sitesh Ld. Nagangauda, taken not AR atare (AIR forpoint heard place, still 1980, workman. 2007 I Acan working before SC in LLR 1896), not 340 say,the inof in that I the following even self The WW1/M4. In U.P. initial onus State has any Brasswarewhere.now therefore, I am Corporation shifted nottoaware theVs.workman. Udaiof any Narain suchPandey, 2006 specifically
13.MW1/12.
26. both of purport may gross Management his Itex-facie Theparties. negligence is duties for enforced, offer denied and which administratively be My then most ofthat stigmatic.
in does findings appointment on college. Grievance the having handling ofmanagement Nil. the not termination the next on Opportunity limit receipt documents TheItthis and issue Committee date isletterthe language aspect. jurisdiction technically. correct thereof.... ever order no.
produced Ex.
of1agreed given". would used the was But that only WW1/2,management since the It issued, thereunder Reference workman be of the representative to isoriginal dependent withdraw correct documents clause labour he could was may was register clearly that 5,theon thencourts. also in provides challenge my termination question reflect containing had show It findings was tothat the i.e was not statement. present The nor aware.
said statement Management is being mayEX words:
employment
18.
2.
5. awarded which reinstatement would fetch with any continuity earning ofthat to service the employee, and with 50% including back alwaysCopy LLR During 214, It came of the understood evidence, memo Hon'ble to havebe issued dated Chokidar of documents (Dr. that workman the Supreme reiterated written Aruna when 20/02/01, to theand workman time Ex.
workman examined Court Sitesh) namesan CW1/Y1. I was Sr. Administrative Officer at mostly Ex.
and order of WW1/M4 WW1/M5. considered anyagain of his were dated himself dutywas retrenchment members, 02/03/01, heard.
hours as various grant writtenWW1 what of were Ex.
The previousby onMW1/5. reinstatement has can been his affidavit judgments declared and letter on workman same there proceedings minutes it casewas agriculturalissue was thereafter. ofdated trying "Traveling of no.
shall something Deepati pursuitsmeeting 26/03/01. happened to2,be level asThe over onat proceedings me framed Prakash would serious over night.
probation and the Principal" foundation to As same be be and showing the by regards IPremjeet charges directly cannot above my Principal for ofofLd.
ground included the one theof the say the inrelevant Grievance year Predecessor. misconduct demand Vs. by attendance order assertion that and going 'gainful andtheto same having Satender that notice Principal thethat Committee through against employment'.ofifbear entire Asbeen the his the dated Nath such, work officer everymy the of members disclosed controversy 27/07/01 Bossworkman Iprecedent isproceed was not Nationalby of found also, and the to is
6. rendered back 'illegal', Copy wages the by of was same it I memo a say andthe ismatter when dated relevant concluded supposed of I was 01/03/01,time discretion to benoti.e that voidthere Ex.inthere of WW1/M6.
the the inyear ab-initio wasthe labour meeting.
2001no and court and binding hence, andnow It is that I precedent inoperative; the order that of the
3. Ex. Copy wages. WW1/A supererogatory of extension and and besides the are signature we letter still college hold helying tendered given atSmt.
the point inby rule the Aruna following workman isA.
office simpleSitesh It of isdated documents the correct thatused college.
20/03/01, the tothat take inItevidence:-
discretion I Ex. MW1/6. to deny Thus, from wrong amthe retired.
to suggest position of that I reinstatementam deposing and falsely.
back wages I being the
7.
33.
the management decide satisfactory, appellant unsuitable since meeting. instead result Copy In reinstatement
28.Centre they issue of is contrast SEE labour for that of in The holding :courtfor were thecomplaint that no.
probation orand Basicclaims the said to (1) 2 case stated pare should prior job.
a work is this, employee have fullregister detailed Sciences;
V.P. at
to
correct
dated
can
to
to
Above
a received document down back show have from later Ahujabe issue bewas 15/03/01, the would enquiry the extended AIR that stage fourth replied mentioned no.
wages directed very Ex.
Vs. application be document 1999 quantum 1.
proceeding the therein class basis CW1/X State also to by should deemed original SC to of of tests, the one ofEx.
of be employees and Ex.
983, mind to more termination same retained WW1/6.
which always Punjab;
back behowever, order of giving WW1/M5.
wages wherein on grievance year.
vide isthiswas the continuing at bean on (2000) If are isher theheld opportunity their order, record point.during alleged It granted not absent 3 to entire in letter it SCCexhaustive be till that was minutesvitiated when save (Hindustan servicecase further to dated 239year, also the of-a for law and (At this have seen the statement on page already stage Ld. AR for management Sh.
1.
4.
39. exceptional automatic Interview Copy Reference of memo reasons." consequence call letter is answered dated hone committee is correct ofdated aand 21/03/01 that she 19/03/99, hasIused accordingly. retrenchment issued have not to Ex.
received been tocollect Award being WW1/1.
thefoundfiled.
workman, isthe false passed. document I report illegal, have ExMW1/7. Copy we of have thecome awarda termination therefore, the is grantRajeev EXCW1/Y1 held to of be theDayal illegal. relief andseeks Itit ofclasswas permission may held reinstatement be so that to that a and cross personsit full may examine back is have notwages entitled alongwith to get Motors
21.ISSUE 24/08/01. his in incumbent orders.
workman law.
the In work Ltd. Vs. Tapan Kumar reported as (2002 6was SCC, 41; Indian the held with -said the alleged This a is No. respect to course case.
upon not be court 2Grievance probationer to this been heard, afound the The ofagainst deposed Ex.
then management arguments, language probationer witness.
in my
the
satisfactory, directed WW1/M6 Committee like management IVwith used temporary Allowed. hand hadSh.
the but itto was and R.S. employees the regard in have Meeting been ) still impugned came found services the Vashisth, come servant reviewed do to same held not up thenecessary who up is know with can order allegations onSecretary with by bear also used bethe 20/04/01 the in the terminated bytermination my to entitled found Hon'ble what proceedings to this be at court examined to to 10.30 on Supremebe order certainthat one ex-
on am long
2.
5. be way Then sent to Appointment Copy to inaappropriate of position Mohanlal letter letter written refused against where signature datedVs. bywork government theaward Bharat the 12/04/99, at would point workman workman of atlawful her for full Electronics, A.....
Ex. home back dated WW1/2.
publicationon Itdoisand thewages 1981 23/03/01, correct ultimately basis within has (3) that Ex.
30ofactually SCC, IMW1/8.
days from become
215, the
the
something all benefits Railway Construction only of because continuous XXXXXXX it would service Co.this Vs. meeting be Ajay by Sh. Kumarbe to automatic. Rajeev reportedso.
Dayal, It was asLd. also (2003) acknowledged AR 4 SCC, 579; connection was held. It is correct
14.
24. Grievance month's facie their as simply (3) shows rare. CW1.
The protection Court principle stigmatic.
ownoftried claim Sh.
Although and notice.
In R.S.
-it Jaswant Committee and His wasto reinstatementofVashisth, the since make the used burden services observed itSingh records/complaint. was workman proceedings itwith appointed to would look Secretary of cannot thatfull case terminate that like have proving the be back should he by-termination as is been their terminated said itthe beingunemployed this wages have Iis issue decision the Principal services have when one was beenbest simplicitor ofhas arbitrarily fully again placed personal thealso piece onof the stands very members been coveredor reiteratedthe on ofon cast punitive record evidence the account denied service present upon said byafter without although and the of in in the case it that ever In since Hindustan for that management KendriyaITin understand Works Vidalaya English Vs. Its very Sangthan employees well. (supra), Some reported body the as onus 1979 to (2) prove SCC
3.
6. M.P.receipt Appointment Copy State of ofElectricitycomplaint letter basis knowledge College.....
datedof false 11/03/01, 21/04/99, of It the award. Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141;report.
is the correct allegation Ex. MW1/9.
WW1/3.
that I mentioned
had also filedin
was The
noticed concept
that must
some of Ihave
ofknow
back the Roshangoes
approached wages earlier Lal alongwith judgments claimant, me for had workman assistance reinstatement indicated who thatfora since labour itspeak was court
27.
29.
32. it management possession workman is The In However, prescribed the specifically the meeting. management unemployment complying as well. termination being present of management.
on most probation with Documents as had on perpleaded its case the civil probation. shifted the letter surprising orderown The also complaint.
suit period principles of to that dated of or since Toworkman against workman the management my the withhold is 26/03/01 was Ld. admittedly workman.
of the workman It mytestimony is over, Predecessor natural is such Ex.
representative arecorrect termination. gainfully justice the WW1/4 should kind that absolutely workman of that dated
- of employed court reads dischargeevidence have all Terminationfalse 08/06/04.was It the was as witness called isunder:-
and earning did on order probation, not upon Sh.
fabricated. However, order makingmore R.S. stating the in 80, UP the State normal Textile is writing rule present Corporation to a kind grant in court.
ofVs. a reinstatement draft P.C. He and was Chaturvedi I just anwith employee helped reported full him back as of by (2005) wages 8, SCC,was
4.
7.
40.
considered Termination Copy In after weighing view of be to performanceletter ofcontinuation all the the participating complaints wrong dated false facts report and toand26/03/01, suggest of against of in the fabricated the circumstances, that service Ex.
workman, grievance theI WW1/4.
wasworkman documents itself.
may negligent Ex. committee. However, award MW1/10.
were in the my filed/tenderedin latest trend compensation by in lieu the is Then once management.
writing
again it
in downJ.K. but I
SyntheticsI am was aware not Vs. concerned K.P. that Agarwal he about wasthe s. reported as
36. than management the well Vashisth, thatThe acknowledged
34. order for Rs.
allegations view of entire Since the the 5000/-
the Executive terminating the appellant credibility on against settled Meru the""failed toSecretary background per place However, respect duties, month.
Screening basis law Yuva the his ofonhimself him, the same therefore, service of of of the Kendra in the was the March management. night facts Grievances he on isrecord previous point,passed.
who clearly Iduties no was the Sangathan performance 26, was 2001 isdoubt but not who not suggests except judgments. neither confirmed". Surrounding shown burden stigmatic Vs. of has topresent one himself that toMehboob his having be prove It and duties in was present present that its failed inadministratively been Iobserved circumstances effect case to indone, termination Alam stand and the is said that Lasker; this not the by also if of
211).
(2) In Chowkidar.
meeting as such. I am I can not not awaresay name about of any such that
5.
8. even of management reinstatement Letter Copy reinstatement ofdated agendaand back Sh.
24/04/01 appropriate ofis establishment was being wages.
Roshan meeting performing from proceedingsreplaced Lal,dated management committee.
my by separately 26/03/01, duties are thein compensation.
upholding Ex.dayMW1/11. times.
being the termination, In M/s against initiated Lords Ex.
2007after a LLR protracted 358, time misconducts person the and Chowkidar Hon'ble energy as I doalleged not evenSupreme consuming toGrievance have remember Court litigation been has what noticed during committed actually which the previous period the
15.one
25.
31. court same the showing meeting service and As MW1, However, document. of Then could called termination regards was Sh.
came that has technically"
Thereafter, not for General V.K. leaving conciliation Statement discharge denied illegal both have production of Nayyar Vol.
- and/or service It been having Besides the wasHaryana aside isThere above of was wrong passed proceedings not simplicitor of CW1 the ever unjustified the Section isthe based reliefs Roadways no to technical is without attended affidavit suggest being rules Officer solely would ofonly but also, on any Vs. holding for reproduced the aspects always filed reinstatement that management inansuch Rudhan including order Committee the in lie Hawaldar Highan management. and is assessment enquiry hereunderSingh absolutely meeting.
upon
and of
Courtconsidering back claims proceedings of and The theunsatisfactory workman and wages (2005), Relevant for punitive to appellant'sgiving have easy entire inhave in5 the as the Homeopathic (2008) 2 SCC Laboratories must by the 479, it have saidletterwas Vs. Roshan held Ms. happened. that Lal Lissyathe Unnikunju in the Being event reported senior of as 2006 IV,
9. the WW1/5.
workman judgments Copy just management of sustains and termination has Indraprastha workman Chaman concludedhimself, officials i.eLal that College datedrepresentative and ultimately Sh. award V.K. for 26/03/01, ofany Principal Women, Nayyar, is back point toEx.
didbewages Section of College inMW1/12.
not told time.
appear that isOfficer becoming It (Admn.), though herare. willDr. To be SCC, undergone 591. The avide administrative Hon'ble isbe progressive Shamnath correct Courtthat dilution. officer, listed Marg, Ms. a Aruna In it few was Surender factors Siteshmy duty on was Kumar which to help Principal Verma the or awardVs. of Central back AD duly original portions opportunity documents reference:-
and work it stigmatic.
participated andof (Delhi), proceedings is Supreme the his to workman Court to 739, conduct cross the broughtorder As alsoabsolutely inworkman theGoverning in the examination such, during who sheet witness Hon'ble by indicated said the termination comes necessary to proceedings dated body.
probation bebox High managementwould to background heard 08/05/2000.
for
-There Court court ofread inbetter and service the his Termination are and only ofasthey is defence. under:-
and reasons noof Delhi rendered it the is had For just he rule the held has appellant also Itdecision the false who that workman for iscited
-filed not same and asserts was only of Stigmatictheir around reasons, the without fabricated thatareply case and 20 his quote reinstated, from he performance the will judgment:
by guide thebe Delhi. denied employee, other back officials. the wages termination It is which correct of thatwould probation there bewere due would toterminated him, have beenthe
6.
10. Aruna wages Copy could ofbeletter Sitesh, of Principal/Chairman demand based. college dated grievance complaints notice Some inof 24/04/01, 2001.
dated committee against these 27/07/01, Ex. (at factors&MW1/13.
workmanthis Sh. Ex.stage in are: the WW1/6.
R.D. witness false andisAdministration areuniversity Verma, Govt. Industrial judgments of the Tribunal, Supreme officials senior 1981 Court to (1) me SCR, andinDelhi 2001 789, High i.e itVicewasCourt held Principal, that to The conclude there may that be in dated management where and holding workman record. in 10/07/02 no "Coming punitive. order any would It enquiry Heldstands confronted enquiry to was stating be
- arrive "(Sealed backthealso was "It rules.
they quite into at wages subjected test with therein is held directed thecorrect the know even governing well to original Consisting envelope and truth charges their ato noifthat ofproduce sort explained the of opportunity stand.
the ofofcourt termination EX containing isas six complaint absolutely matter, per penalty then WW-
service persons, findsparawas thatof it for 1/M6). management the rules violative clause given that two necessaryregister no-fault probation management of fromto the onits ofthe was of is toemployees provisions no workman his directed award and longer avoided back i.e of to itresis to
-termination Held -
held to1.beNature Order has justified. been on Principal, the Dear done face Sh.
However, Versor illegally of Roshan itwhen etc. was and Lal,It the is unjustifiably stigmaticfoundation obvious andthat and punitive for there as such was such- it Hon'ble an order is he who High isshort not signaturesof employment at point (whether permanent or temporary or
7. Incharge
11. wages, exceptional suitable A.D. Copy the cases Card, of areply question circumstances in Ex.
accordance containing compensationdated WW1/7.
(one) the workman will side 24/08/01 be ofwhether where with pages of law.
should anA appointment arethe false.
to are 1management, to back order be 3only thegranteddemand Itof is letter wages initials isopened wrong dated reinstatement in three notice, should lieu and atto21/04/99, from ofthis not suggest Ex.
beandstage the the MW1/14.
awarded
reinstatement. full backfully wages or
wholly undeserved. term governing
daily It
wage was body stated
basis of
etc.) that trustees.any other I view can not would say be placing a
16.I.D. only University be produce heard, Workman Act partially integra.
examine
has as
the
When
any
toimpossible prove itRules.
well isfull said (and filed also otheraand thisas signatures Grievance the side that principles abe ifThisCW so, disciplinary officer and rejoinder case workman of proceedings 1not the the where is of of shown Ms. Committee of workman denying natural percentage).
enquiry
the
the was
management other Aruna management the of isappointed and justice grievance the register). That initiated way Sitesh Proceedings stand the alsohas as depends round.on usually Principal no-one taken Icommittee come probation the shownhave through by premise Itcase up uponcan and as put seen cannot thewith be being themanagement aTermination thatcondemned becompetent absolutely facts there present for andare in the may Court an be was unsatisfactory Although held there whether to performance or are wrong is inequitable there various towas in inform on holding e.g., recent any the you part when it that judgments specific ofas the non-stigmatic the legal your employee industry of the advisor might for Hon'ble of -but have overt Supremeclosedacts
2. Method while of selection and employment.
8.
12. premium Postal Copy Fileon circumstances beof receipt, an postal of theEx. unwarranted cosigned the have tomarking receipt, for one minutes each WW1/8. confirmation one recordSecretary not case, Exyear ofbeen litigative the MW1/15.
Grievance any room. from was post.
filed who activity income 26/04/99.
placed intentionally Committee preside ofbefore receivedthe (Ld.Itemployer.
is over by AR Meetings the correct as the theOffice for employee during
3. Length the management management ofcontents service. is or directed not. to It has place been the very long
22. the down Courtand false officer unheard serious the order The reiterating and relevant or and minutes and manipulated allegations granting meeting, management couldmight management which period not the even to be small of pasted show have that meeting. workman meeting on of in has though documents.
inwhat vide accountwas misconduct amountsevere that Establishment been the of in Itof they the passed was also has the is letter of register correct happened financialclaim not original directed on compensation were termination Committee without dated presented alternative at the asthat page partregister being to doldrums admittedly was on in14/03/2000, holding representative 2produce of the and there true employment ranging legal 26/03/2001. Ioriginal present were state and the and delinquent or still a and where regular from in that tendered correct. service case.
the the of or justified on enquiry Termination officer the Rs.servicethrough rules business but of itand concerned 10,000/-
since of isisSh.
the his the for thea to However, amounting 4. Time to in time.elapsedthe misconduct, same There after judgment, an may his opportunity have termination. deviation been. of It from hearing is wrong this to to rule the was employee also
9. Announced
20. relevant UPC, Besides, factor Ex. record in management WW1/9.
to
the be
itopen takenin isproceedings probation the thenote workman certainly court course also period were ofnot ofcontaining confronted are while the included biased. day). ofawardingthethe ItImy inworkman theam workman, notwages, is signatures back grievance wrong aware was during to in addition his cross to employeenone 25,000/-, would of have these suggest secured judgments that for an the employment lay down reason any that else formula there where.
were or By the very guidelines other to tone arrive
17.
30. R.S. employees, of recognized Today the service On During Vashisth, on several explanation the and ofcourse basis 01/10/2008 factorsitabout all the thereSecretary was anythis of workman of The contents extended committee suggest thefinal vide observed mentioned upon pleadings, who has
- committee where of arguments, is order that for thatinEX was held itbeen one MW-
examined dated workman order following to Rudhan Iyear.
itwas be rejected, decided 1/M6.
transpired illegal 08/05/08. tonot It as Singh toissues prove services is CW1 as pursuantVol.
correct that well were Being effective (supra). terminate with While Grievance as were framed that respect thereto at unjustified.
theThe Therefore, your aCommittee by terms tofull the my byIssueitsaid and Ld. scale is Inthereof. present in any management the order workman was and to show even that otherwise was could not legal have and been justified. summoned relevant the concerned isstigmatic imperative. senior officers Departmental other to me,(SUJATA thereenquiry words, was no was ifKOHLI) the employee need necessary.
for meistofound While to have the necessary
19.no.
and at Predecessor examination, record.
portions observation committed formal proceedings conditions management tenor the "In the for Management, It 2 said iswasenquiry of decided of The very the the held cross of misconduct of amount.on which with nature employee such resolution senior guide to judgment, Hon'ble services, 08/06/2004:-
service has against prove that examination on certain thereafter of meeting representation terminated was been post in other thethe High the However, things, statedto tendered and it case giving although these was plead ,initiated, documents other alleged management Court there officials.
the
conduct
of Iof
illegally". the toimplied inhand, kind workmanthat J.U. you period be by am workman cannot culminating proceedings. an inthe the being ofthathe AdditionalAkhtar abasis examined rules that order witness was absolutely documents of and month's workman. are case Vol.
as be probation the in has of not under:-
being arendered District terminating favour onus in was was Iastraight Vs. gainfully termination As University Sh. notice neverunaware Management & finding reproduced regards that to exhibit Iwas was V.K. ofdo provethe jaclet Sessions w.e.f.
went not employed aprobation the Nayyar, of as the impugned workman. order long the formula Judge Non-Academic guilt;
Ex.hereunder:- proceedings exceptional had period CW1/X1.
that Sectionfrom ofwould M/s never orderfor the of the date of relief awarding his termination----.
through ofabout 26.3.2001 administrative extended remember back me this atso wages. in called any head. view as stage. more.
Allto Itofrelevant is your Presiding whenIt isunsatisfactory wrong meeting. Officer wrong to the suggest considerations The date to Labour suggest resolution work theCourt-II, that Iwill enter the service circumstances Markfed and Agro the time would reported elapsed be on as after the 2006 his employer. VIII termination AD However, (Delhi) was 33, insmaller the Kendriya Hon'ble in comparison, Vidyalya Delhi
1. before Officer Statement was appear order been Employees verdict. To Copy What not produced ofwhat the to (Admn.) More ISSUE No. 1(Relief)termination stigmatic of emerges at Establishment be were letter relief, page that am or innocuous byless and I the if grievance from "It upon MW1 ofam of any, it dereliction tendered by the management at this stage is may as produced deposing dated 1 Maximum management the is21/04/99, service would the deposing this, itself, Committee is correct register onon falsely the pleadings his committee beHon'ble thewould the workman a of affidavit period Ex.
that next ison falsely. on same Ex.
it motion duty, WW1/M1.
be ground never its Supreme and I date, of CW1/1.
was held entitled would own was Ex.
probation the Vol.
only saw addressed despite Karkardooma MW1/A. of stigmatic. appointed nor over constituted. Court be light I sympathy. against a they am photocopy vitiated all period to of repeated Courts, observed a Besides, were evidence theday.
the as There very is I if a management called I of discretionin hethat minutes led effect itofHigh tendered upon also by was and the by be of thein On 'What is alternative warnings, employment?, as of recorded infather yourwhile it was the view earlier that fullterms Tribunal. Sanghtan Court backhas ofwages reference? Full Vs. held responsible back am S.C. could that being two remember Probationer.....
wages not OPW.
Sharma, in betaken such awarded.
years would supporting person 2005 on cases, beof two any LLR record and theIt However, the normal one.is member 275, and compensation Irule correct workman beingamifpersonal while of only the of andEX Delhi.
that senior the file.
denying grievance workman as Iparty CW1/X1.
emphasising cannot per wasIPS has beobjecting thatbeen less thatto than inthe ita
2. Copy of memo dated 05/08/99, Ex. WW1/M2.
23.
35. must only
37. workman surprising substance cases the Grievance Arguments The following workman where aestablish regular entireitas as Committee is the and REINSTATEMENT/BACKWAGES or the documents well found documents werehisorder allegations University committee working asA/R Icircumstances Officer.
the substantial
false
have to
heard
the
were
be Iin
ex-facie document seen and am stigmatic i.e management at evidence:-
produced asEx.
no norms gainful the not involved length named astatement was doubt WW1/M2, necessitating of aware Probationer inand .stigmatic as but nature.
employment the Ld. Imoral itself rules.
Amar proceed not ARthe management.
shown as Ex.
the Itturpitude is at and for Nath was to MW1/1, to that original. the workman departure". would toalso whether decide further Sharma, betime the bepunitive.
on Ex.
management Matter the of held considered dated the also MW1/2 claim part that could was Sincetoeven on ofagain & have had denythe 3, if short back relief term wages of back heemployment would wages With isotherwise at or discretion regards, the was be appointed entitled of to.
the without court, it was followingheld that the it wasproper for
2.
3. Whether Copy of extension the claimantservices Mohand termination At letter Shri atofpage service this workman dated Chaman Chand.
stage ofwas my 14/03/2000, 1this services.
terminated Lal These terminated register Hawaldar two Ex.
It directed is legally is or WW1/M3.
person correct aboutisIbeing still to that
(s) thebea probationer? back wages The principle to the20.4.01 was Sd/-emphatically workman, it has of this restated been heldregister Gujarat in now, and in North Steel state Tubes Est Karnatka Ltd. Vs.
1. procedure the OPM.
basis terminated order the delinquent very adjourned Ex. Copies WW1/M4, claimant/workman employee Thewell of was etc., material rule founded called for the official. to of awardproduction services Ex.
reasons sealed show ofthat complaints upon on working were civildocuments on MW1/4, of The record, back that the full same the of came language representatives ground the back of therefor. law he in management Ex.
in an was also dated original workman to Ex.
the that notthe wages WW1/M5, know that used envelope. not a of light WW1/M1 college 07/03/2000, appellant minutes could in because at of to Grievance gainfully containing contract thethe arguments aproduce Ex.
and not later to order workman. of WW1/M6, had employed of my of be Ex.
the the stage personalhis 01/05/2000, proper.
failed ofWW1/M3 the Principal addressed Grievance Committeealleged termination signatures same the afterThe in Ex.
servicethe real misconduct.
his MW1/5and performance on 29/05/2000, Committee. object of there behalf termination. cannot service to wasand Ex.
of be
4. 38.19/02/01,Copy Keeping of written inMW1/1view Yours explanation the sincerely, facts and the circumstances workman dated of tokenthis case, 22/06/2000,workman is Ex. Gujarat Road Steel TrasporationEx.Tubes Meeting Smt. workman bear XXXXxx Vs. to Mazdoormay my Ex.
Aruna M. signature MW1/4.
havebywas Sabha Sitesh Ld. Nagangauda, taken not AR atare (AIR forpoint heard place, still 1980, workman. 2007 I Acan working before SC in LLR 1896), not 340 say,the inof in that I the following even self The WW1/M4. In U.P. initial onus State has any Brasswarewhere.now therefore, I am Corporation shifted nottoaware theVs.workman. Udaiof any Narain suchPandey, 2006 specifically
26.MW1/12. both of purport may gross Management his The ex-facie parties. negligence duties for enforced, offerand which administratively be My then most ofstigmatic.
in does findings appointment on college. Grievance the having handling ofthe Nil. not termination the next on Opportunity limit receipt documents TheItthis and issue Committee date is the language letter aspect. jurisdiction technically. correct thereof.... order no.
produced Ex.
of1 would given". used the was But that only WW1/2,management since the It issued, thereunder Reference workman be of the representative isoriginal dependent correct documents clause labour he could was may was register clearly that 5,on thencourts.
also in provides challenge my question reflect containing had show It findings was tothatthe i.e was not statement. present The nor aware.
said statement Management is being mayEX words:
employment
18.
2.
5. awarded which reinstatement would fetch with any continuity earning ofthat to service the employee, and with 50% including back alwaysCopy LLR During 214, It came theof understood evidence, memo Hon'ble to havebe issued dated Chokidar of documents (Dr. that workman Supreme reiterated written the Aruna when 20/02/01, to theand workman time Ex.
workman examined Court Sitesh) namesan CW1/Y1. I was Sr. Administrative Officer at mostly Ex.
and order of WW1/M4 WW1/M5. considered anyagain of his were dated himself dutywas retrenchment members, 02/03/01, heard.
hours as various grant writtenWW1 what of were Ex.
The previousby onMW1/5. reinstatement has can been his affidavit judgments declared and on workman same there proceedings minutes it casewas agriculturalissue was thereafter. oftrying "Traveling of no.
shall something Deepati pursuitsmeeting happened to2,be level asThe over onat proceedings me framed Prakash would serious over night.
probation and the Principal" foundation tosame be be and showing the by IPremjeet charges directly cannot above my Principal for ofofLd.
ground included the one theof the say the inrelevant Grievance year Predecessor. misconduct Vs. by attendance order assertion that and going 'gainful andtheto same having Satender that Principal thethat Committee through against employment'.ofifbear entire Asbeen the his theevery Nath such, work officer my the of members disclosed controversy Bossworkman Iprecedent isproceed was not Nationalby offound and the to is
6. rendered back 'illegal', Copy wages theby of was same it I memo a say andthe ismatter when dated relevant concluded supposed of I was 01/03/01,time discretion to benoti.e that voidthere Ex.inthere of WW1/M6.
the the in year ab-initio wasthe labour meeting.
2001no and court and binding hence, andnow It is that I precedent inoperative; the order that of the
3. Ex. Copy wages. WW1/A supererogatory of extension and and besides the are signature we letter still college hold helying tendered given atSmt.
the point inby rule the Aruna following workman isA.
office simpleSitesh It of isdated documents the correct thatused college.
20/03/01, the tothat take inItevidence:-
discretion I Ex. MW1/6. to deny Thus, from wrong amthe retired.
to suggest position of that I reinstatementam deposing and falsely.
back wages I being the
7.
33.
the decide satisfactory, appellant unsuitable since meeting. instead result Copy In reinstatement
28.Centre they issue of is contrast SEE labour for that of in The holding :courtfor were thecomplaint that no.
probation orand Basic the said to (1) 2 case stated pare should prior job.
a work is this, employee have fullregister detailed Sciences; V.P. atcorrect dated can to to Above a received document down back show from later Ahujabe issue bewas 15/03/01, the would enquiry the extended AIR that stage fourth mentioned no.
wages directed very Ex.
Vs. application be document 1999 quantum 1.
proceeding the therein class basis CW1/X State also by should deemed original SC to of of tests, one of Ex.
of be employees and Ex.
983, mind to more termination retained WW1/6.
which always Punjab;
back behowever, order of giving WW1/M5.
wages wherein on grievance year.
isthiswas the continuing at bean on (2000) If are isher theheld opportunity order, record point.during alleged It granted not absent 3 to entire in it SCCexhaustive be till that servicewas minutesvitiated when save (Hindustan case further toyear, 239 also the of-a for law and (At this have seen the statement on page already stage Ld. AR for management Sh.
1.
4.
39. exceptional automatic Interview Copy Reference of memo reasons." consequence call letter is answered dated hone committee is correct ofdatedaand 21/03/01 that she 19/03/99, hasIused accordingly. retrenchment issued have not to Ex.
received been tocollect Award being WW1/1.
thefoundfiled.
workman, isthe false passed. document I report illegal, have ExMW1/7. Copy we of have thecome awarda termination therefore, the is grantRajeev EXCW1/Y1 held to of be the Dayal illegal. relief andseeks Itit ofclasswas permission may held reinstatement be so that to that a and cross personsit full may examine back is have notwages entitled alongwith to get Motors
21.ISSUE his in incumbent orders.
workman law.
the In work Ltd. Vs. Tapan Kumar reported as (2002 6was SCC, 41; Indian the held with -said the alleged This a is No. respect to course case.
upon not be court 2Grievance probationer to this been heard, afound the The ofagainst deposed Ex.
then management arguments, language probationer witness.
in my
the
satisfactory, directed WW1/M6 Committee like management IVwith used temporary Allowed. hand hadSh.
the but itto was and R.S. employees the regard in have Meeting been ) still impugned came found services the Vashisth, come servant reviewed do to same held not up thenecessary who up is know with can order allegations onSecretary with by bear also used bethe 20/04/01 the in the terminated bytermination my to entitled found Hon'ble what proceedings to this be at court examined to to 10.30 on Supremebe order certainthat one ex-
on am long
2.
5. be way Then sent to Appointment Copy to inaappropriate of position Mohanlal letter letter written refused against where signaturedatedVs. bywork government theaward Bharat the 12/04/99, at would point workman workman of atlawful her for full Electronics, A.....
Ex. home back dated WW1/2.
publicationon Itdoisand thewages 1981 23/03/01, correct ultimately basis within has (3) that Ex.
30ofactually SCC, IMW1/8.
days from become
215, the
the
something all benefits Railway Construction only of because continuous XXXXXXXit would service Co.this Vs. meeting be Ajay by Sh. Kumarbe to automatic. Rajeev reportedso.
Dayal, It was asLd. also (2003) acknowledged AR 4 SCC, 579; connection was held. It is correct
24. Grievance month's facie their as simply (3) shows rare.
principle CW1. stigmatic.
ownoftried notice.
Sh.
Although protection Court and In and R.S.
-it Jaswant Committee His wasto reinstatement since make theVashisth,used burden services observed itSingh records/complaint. wasproceedings itwith appointed to would look Secretary of cannot thatfull case terminatelike have proving the be back should by-termination as been their terminated said itthe being this wages have Iis issue decision the Principal services have when one was beenbest simplicitor ofhas arbitrarily fully again placed personal the piece onof the very members been coveredor reiteratedthe on ofon cast punitive record evidence account service the present upon said byafter without although the caseof in in theit that ever In since Hindustan for that management KendriyaITin understand Works Vidalaya English Vs. Its very Sangthan employees well. (supra), Some reported body the as onus 1979 to (2) prove SCC
3.
6. M.P.receipt Appointment Copy State of ofElectricitycomplaint letter basis knowledge College.....
datedof false 11/03/01, 21/04/99, of It report. the award. Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141; is the correct allegation Ex. MW1/9.
WW1/3.
that I mentioned
had also filedin
was The
noticed concept
that must
some of Ihave
know
back
of the Roshangoes
approached wages earlier Lal alongwith judgments claimant, me for had workman assistance reinstatement indicated who thatfora since labour itspeak was court
27.
29.
32. management possession workman The In However, prescribed the the meeting. management unemployment complying as well. termination being present of management.
on most probation with Documents as had on per its case the civil probation. shifted the letter surprising orderown The also complaint.
suit period principles of to dated of or since Toworkman against the management my the withhold is 26/03/01 was Ld. admittedly workman.
of the workman It mytestimony is over, Predecessor natural such Ex.
representative arecorrect termination. justice the WW1/4 should kind that absolutely workman of that dated
- of court reads dischargeevidence have all false 08/06/04. Termination was It the was as witness called isunder:-
and did
on
order probation,
not
upon
Sh.
fabricated. However, order making R.S. stating the in 80, UP the State normal Textile is writing rule present Corporation ato kind grant in court.
ofVs. a reinstatement draft P.C. He and was Chaturvedi I just anwith employee helped reported full him back as of by (2005) wages 8, SCC,was
4.
7.
40. considered Termination Copy In after weighing view of be to performanceletter ofcontinuation all the the participating complaints wrong dated false facts report and toand26/03/01, suggest of against of in the fabricated the circumstances, that service Ex.
workman, grievance theI WW1/4.
was workman documents itself.may negligent Ex. committee. However, award MW1/10.
were in the my filed/tenderedin latest trend compensation by in lieu the is Then once management.
writing again it in down J.K. but I SyntheticsI am was aware not Vs. concerned K.P. that Agarwal he about wasthe s. reported as
36. management the well Vashisth, thatThe acknowledged
34. order for allegations view of entire Since the the the Executive terminating the appellant credibility on against settled Meru the""failed toSecretary background place However, respect duties, Screening basis law Yuva the his ofonhimself him, the same therefore, service of of of the Kendra in the was the March management. night facts Grievances he on isrecord previous point,passed.
who clearly Iduties no was the Sangathan performance 26, was 2001 isdoubt but notwho not suggests except judgments. neither confirmed". Surrounding shown burden stigmatic Vs. of has topresent one himself that toMehboob his having be prove It and duties in was present present that its failed inadministratively been Iobserved circumstances effect case to indone, termination Alam stand and the Lasker;is said that this not the by also if of
211).
(2) In Chowkidar.
meeting as such. I am I can not not aware say name about of any such that
5.
8. even of management reinstatement Letter Copy reinstatement ofdated agendaand back Sh.
24/04/01 appropriate ofis establishment was being wages.
Roshan meeting performing from proceedingsreplaced Lal,dated management committee.
my by separately 26/03/01, duties are thein compensation.
upholding Ex.dayMW1/11. times.
being the termination, In M/s against initiated Lords Ex.
2007after a LLR protracted 358, time misconducts person the and Hon'ble energy as I doalleged Chowkidar not evenSupreme consuming toGrievance have remember Court litigation been has what noticed during committed actually which the previous period the
25.one
31. court same the showing meeting service and MW1, However, document. of Then could called termination was Sh.
came that has technically"
Thereafter, not for General V.K. leaving Statement discharge denied illegal both have production of Nayyar Vol.
- and/or service It been having Besides the wasHaryana aside isThere above of was wrong passed not simplicitor of CW1 the ever unjustified the Section isthe based reliefs Roadways no to technical is without attended affidavit suggest being rules Officer solely would ofonly but on any Vs. holding for reproduced the aspects always filed reinstatement that inansuch Rudhan including order Committee the in lie Hawaldar Highan management. and is assessment enquiry hereunderSingh absolutely meeting.
upon
and of
Courtconsidering back proceedings of and The theunsatisfactory workman and wages (2005), Relevant for punitive appellant'sgiving easy entire inhave in5 the as the Homeopathic (2008) 2 SCC Laboratories must by the 479, it have saidletterwas Vs. Roshan held Ms. happened. that Lal Lissyathe Unnikunju in the Being event reported senior of as 2006 IV,
9. the WW1/5.
workman judgments Copy just management of sustains and termination has Indraprastha workman Chaman concluded himself, officials i.eLal that College datedrepresentative and ultimately Sh. award V.K. for 26/03/01, ofany Principal Women, Nayyar, is back point toEx.
didbewages Section of College inMW1/12.
not told time.
appear that isOfficer becoming It (Admn.), though herare. willDr. To be SCC, undergone 591. The avide administrative Hon'ble isbe progressive Shamnath correct Courtthat dilution. officer, listed Marg, Ms. a Aruna In it few was Surender factors Siteshmy duty on was Kumar which to help Principal Verma the or awardVs. of Central back AD original portions opportunity documents reference:-
and work it stigmatic.
andof (Delhi), proceedings is Supreme the his to workman Court to 739, conduct cross the broughtorder As alsoabsolutely theGoverning in workman examination such, during who sheet witness Hon'ble by indicated the termination comes necessary to dated body.
probation bebox High managementwould to background heard 08/05/2000.
for
-There Court court ofread inbetter service the his Termination are and only ofasis defence.
under:-
and reasons noof Delhi rendered it the is For just he rule the held has appellant Itdecision the false who that workman for iscited not same
-asserts and was only of Stigmatic around reasons, the without fabricated thata case and 20 his quote reinstated, from he performance the will judgment:
by guide thebe denied employee, other Delhi. back officials. the wages termination It is which correct of thatwould probation there bewere due would toterminated him, have beenthe
6.
10. Aruna wages Copy could ofbeletter Sitesh, of Principal/Chairman demand based. college dated grievance complaints notice Some inof 24/04/01, 2001.
dated committee against these 27/07/01, Ex. (at factors&MW1/13.
workmanthis Sh. Ex.stage in are: the WW1/6.
R.D. witness false andisAdministration areuniversity Verma, Govt. Industrial judgments of the Tribunal, Supreme officials senior 1981 Court to (1) me SCR, andinDelhi 2001 789, High i.e itVicewasCourt held Principal, that to The conclude there may that be in management where and holding workman record. in no "Coming punitive. order any would It enquiry Heldstands confronted enquiry to was be
- arrive "(Sealed backthealso was "It rules.
they quite into at is held wages subjected test with directed thecorrect the know even governing well to original Consisting envelope and truth charges ato noifthat ofproduce sort explained the of opportunity the ofofcourt termination EX containing isas six complaint absolutely matter, per penalty then WW-
service persons, findsparawas thatof it for 1/M6). management the rules violative clause given that two necessaryregister no-fault probation management of fromto the onits ofthe was of is toemployees provisions no workman his directed award and longer avoided back i.e of to itresis to
-termination Held -
held to1.beNature Order has justified. been on Principal, the Dear doneface Sh.
However, Versor illegally of Roshan itwhen etc. was and Lal,It the is unjustifiably stigmaticfoundation obvious andthat and punitive for there as such was such- it Hon'ble an order is he who High isshort not signaturesof employment at point (whether permanent or temporary or
7. Incharge
11. wages, exceptional suitable A.D. Copy the cases Card, of areply question circumstances in Ex.
accordance containing compensationdated WW1/7.
(one) the workman will side 24/08/01 be ofwhether where with pages of law.
should anA appointment arethe false.
to are 1management, to back order be 3only thegranteddemand Itof is letter wages initials isopenedwrong dated reinstatement in three notice, should lieu and atto21/04/99, from ofthis not suggest Ex.
beandstage the the MW1/14.
awarded
reinstatement. full backfully wages or
wholly undeserved. term governing
daily It
wage was body stated
basis of
etc.) that trustees.any other I view can not would say be placing a only University be produce I.D. heard, Act partially integra.
examine
has as
the
When
any
toimpossible prove itRules.
well isfull said (and also otheraand thisas signatures Grievance the side that principles aCW ifThis so, disciplinary officer and case workman of proceedings 1not the the where is of of shown Ms. Committee of workman natural percentage).
enquiry
the
the was
management other Aruna management the of isappointed and justice grievance register). That initiated way Sitesh Proceedings the alsohas as depends round.on usually Principal no-one Icommittee come probation the shownhave through premise Itcase up uponcan and as put seen cannot with be being theaTermination thatcondemned becompetent absolutely facts there present for andare in the may Court an be was unsatisfactory Although held there whether toor be performance wrong is inequitable are therevarious towas in inform on holding e.g., recent any the you part when it that judgments specific ofas the non-stigmatic the legal your employee industry of the advisor might for Hon'ble of -but have overt Supremeclosedacts
2. Method while of selection and employment.
8.
12. premium Postal Copy Fileon circumstances beof receipt, an postal of theEx. unwarranted cosigned the havetomarking receipt, for one minutes each WW1/8. confirmation one recordSecretary not case, Exyear ofbeen litigative the MW1/15.
Grievance any room. from was post.
filed who activity income 26/04/99.
placed intentionally Committee preside ofbefore receivedthe (Ld.Itemployer.
is over by AR Meetings the correct as the theOffice for employee during
3. Length the management management ofon service. is or directed not. to It has place been the very long
22. the down Courtfalse officer unheard serious the Theand relevant or management order and minutes and manipulated allegations granting meeting, couldmight management which period not even to be small of pasted show have that meeting. workman meeting of inhas though documents.
inwhat vide accountwas misconduct severe amount that Establishment been the in Itof they the passed was also has the is letter of register correct happened financialnot original directed on compensation were termination Committee without dated presented alternative at the that page partregister to doldrums admittedly was on in14/03/2000, holding representative 2produce of the and there employment ranging legal 26/03/2001. Ioriginal present were state the and delinquent or still a and where regular from in that tendered service case.
the the of or justified on enquiry Termination officer the Rs.servicethrough rules business but itand concerned 10,000/-
since ofof isisSh.
the hisa to the for the However, amounting 4. Time to in time.elapsedthe misconduct, same There after judgment, an may his opportunity have termination. deviation been. of It from hearing is wrong this to to rule the was employee also
9. Announced
20. relevant UPC, Besides, factor Ex. record in management WW1/9.
to
the be
itopen in
isproceedings probation the taken thenote workman certainly court course also period were ofnot ofcontaining confronted are while the included biased. day). ofawarding thethe ItImy inworkman theam workman, notwages, is signatures back grievance wrong aware was during to in addition his cross to employeenone 25,000/-, would of have these suggest secured judgments that for an the employment lay down reason any that else formula there where.
were or By the very guidelines other to tone arrive
30. R.S. employees, of recognized Today the service During Vashisth, on several explanation and ofcourse 01/10/2008 factorsitabout all the thereSecretary was anythis workman of The contents extended committee suggest final vide observed mentioned upon where who has
- committee of arguments, is order that for thatinEX was held itbeen one MW-
examined dated workman order to Rudhan Iyear.
itwas be rejected, decided 1/M6.
transpired illegal 08/05/08. tonot It as Singh toprove services is CW1 as pursuantVol.
correct that well Being effective (supra). terminate with While Grievance as were that respect thereto at unjustified.
theThe Therefore, your aCommittee terms tofull the byIssueitsaid and scale is Inthereof. present in any management the order workman was and to show even that otherwise was could not legal have and been justified. summoned relevant the concerned isstigmatic imperative. senior officers Departmental other to me,(SUJATA thereenquiry words, was no was ifKOHLI) the employee need necessary.
for meistofound While to have the necessary
19.no.
and at examination, record.
portions observation committed formal proceedings conditions management tenor the "In the for Management, It 2 said iswasenquiry of decided of The very the the held cross of misconduct of amount. which with nature employee such resolution senior guide to judgment, Hon'ble service has against prove thatservices, examination on certain thereafter of meeting representation terminated was been post in other thethe High the However, things, statedto tendered and it case giving although plead ,initiated, documents other these was alleged management Court there officials.
the
conduct
of Iof
illegally". the toimplied inhand, kind workmanthat J.U. you period be by am workman cannot culminating proceedings. an inthe the being ofthathe AdditionalAkhtar abasis examined rules that order was absolutely month's witness documents of and workman. are case Vol.
as be probation the in has of not under:-
being arendered District terminating favour onus in was was Iastraight Vs. gainfully termination As University Sh. notice neverunaware Management & finding reproduced regards that to exhibit Iwas was V.K. ofdo provethe jaclet Sessions w.e.f.
went not employed aprobation the Nayyar, of as the impugned workman. order long the formula Judge Non-Academic guilt;
Ex.hereunder:-
proceedings exceptional had period CW1/X1.
that Sectionfrom ofwould M/s never orderfor the of the date of relief awarding his termination----.
through ofabout 26.3.2001 administrative extended remember back me this atso wages. in called any head. view as stage. more.
Allto Itofrelevant is your Presiding whenIt isunsatisfactory wrong meeting. Officer wrong to the suggest considerations The date to Labour suggest resolution work theCourt-II, that Iwill enter the service circumstances Markfed and Agro the time would reported elapsed be on as after the 2006 his employer. VIII termination AD However, (Delhi) was 33, insmaller the Kendriya Hon'ble in comparison, Vidyalya Delhi
1. before Officer Statement was appear order been Employees verdict. Copy What not produced of the to (Admn.) More ISSUE No. 1(Relief)termination stigmatic of emerges at Establishment be were letter page that am or innocuous byless and 1 I the grievance from "It upon MW1 ofam of it dereliction tendered by the management at this stage is may as produced deposing dated Maximum management the is21/04/99, service would the deposing this, itself, Committee correct register onon falsely pleadings his committee beHon'ble thewould the a of affidavit period Ex.
that next ison falsely. on same Ex.
it motion duty, WW1/M1.
be ground never its Supreme and I date, of CW1/1.
was held would own was Ex.
probation the Vol.
only saw addressed despite Karkardooma MW1/A. of stigmatic. appointed nor over constituted. Court be light I sympathy. a they am photocopy vitiated all period to of repeated Courts, observed a Besides, were evidence theday.
as There very is I if acalled I of discretionin hethat minutes led effect itofHigh tendered upon also by was and the by be of the On 'What is alternative warnings, employment?, as of recorded infather yourwhile it was the view earlier that full Tribunal. Sanghtan Court backhas wages Full Vs. held responsible back am S.C. could that being two remember Probationer..... wages not Sharma, in betaken such awarded.
years would supporting person 2005 on cases, beof two any LLR record and theIt However, the normal one.is member 275, and compensation Irule correct workman beingamifpersonal while of only the of andEX Delhi.
that senior the file.
denying grievance workman as Iparty CW1/X1.
emphasising cannot per wasIPS has beobjecting thatbeen less thatto than inthe ita
2. Copy of memo dated 05/08/99, Ex. WW1/M2.
23.
35. must only
37. workman surprising substance cases the Grievance Arguments The following workman where aestablish regular entireitas as Committee is the and REINSTATEMENT/BACKWAGES or the documents well found documents werehisorder allegations University committee working asA/R Icircumstances Officer.
the substantial
false
have to
heard
the
were
be Iin
ex-facie document seen and am stigmatic i.e management at evidence:-
produced asEx.
no norms gainful the not involved length named astatement was doubt WW1/M2, necessitating of aware Probationer inand .stigmatic as but nature.
employment the Ld. Imoral itself rules.
Amar proceed not ARthe management.
shown as Ex.
the Itturpitude is at and for Nath was to MW1/1, to that original. the workman departure". would toalso whether decide further Sharma, betime the bepunitive.
on Ex.
management Matter the of held considered dated the also MW1/2 claim part that could was Sincetoeven on ofagain & have had denythe 3, if short back relief term wages of back heemployment would wages With isotherwise at or discretion regards, the was be appointed entitled of to.
the without court, it was followingheld that the it wasproper for
3. Copy of extension claimant Mohand termination At letter Shriservice this dated Chaman Chand.
stage ofwas my 14/03/2000, 1this services.
Lal These terminated register Hawaldar two Ex.
It directed is is or WW1/M3.
person correct aboutisI to still that
(s) thebe back wages The principle to the20.4.01 was Sd/-emphatically workman, at page it has of this restated been heldregister Gujarat in now, and in North Steel state Tubes Est Karnatka Ltd. Vs.
1. procedure the basis terminated order the delinquent very adjourned Ex. Copies WW1/M4, claimant/workman employee Thewell of was etc., material rule founded called for the official. to of awardproduction services Ex.
reasons sealed show ofthat complaints upon on working were civildocuments on MW1/4, of The record, back that the full same the of came language representatives ground the back of therefor. law he in management Ex.
in an was also dated original workman to Ex.
the that notthe wages WW1/M5, know that used envelope. not a of light WW1/M1 college 07/03/2000, appellant minutes could in because at of to Grievance gainfully containing contract thethe arguments aproduce Ex.
and not later to order workman. of WW1/M6, had employed of my of be Ex.
the the stage personalhis 01/05/2000, proper.
failed ofWW1/M3 the Principal addressed Grievance Committeealleged termination signatures same the afterThe in Ex.
servicethe real misconduct.
his MW1/5and performance on 29/05/2000, Committee. object of there behalf termination. cannot service to wasand Ex.
of be
4. 38.19/02/01,Copy Keeping of written inMW1/1view Yours explanation the sincerely, facts and the circumstances workman dated of tokenthis case, 22/06/2000,workman is Ex. Gujarat Road Steel TrasporationEx.Tubes Meeting Smt. workman bear XXXXxx Vs. to Mazdoormay my Ex.
Aruna M. signature MW1/4.
havebywas Sabha Sitesh Ld. Nagangauda, taken not AR atare (AIR forpoint heard place, still 1980, workman. 2007 I Acan working before SC in LLR 1896), not 340 say,the inof in that I the following even self The WW1/M4. In U.P. initial onus State has any Brasswarewhere.now therefore, I am Corporation shifted nottoaware theVs.workman. Udaiof any Narain suchPandey, 2006 specifically
26.MW1/12. both of purport may gross Management his The ex-facie parties. negligence duties for enforced, offerand which administratively be My then most ofstigmatic.
in does findings appointment on college. Grievance the having handling ofthe Nil. not termination the next on Opportunity limit receipt documents TheItthis and issue Committee date is the language letter aspect. jurisdiction technically. correct thereof.... order no.
produced Ex.
of1 would given". used the was But that only WW1/2,management since the It issued, thereunder Reference workman be of the representative isoriginal dependent correct documents clause labour he could was may was register clearly that 5,on thencourts.
also in provides challenge my question reflect containing had show It findings was tothatthe i.e was not statement. present The nor aware.
said statement Management is being mayEX words:
employment
2.
5. awarded which reinstatement would fetch with any continuity earning ofthat to service the employee, and with 50% including back alwaysCopy LLR 214, It came theof understood memo Hon'ble to havebe issued dated Chokidar of documents Supreme reiterated (Dr. that written the Aruna when 20/02/01, to theand workman time Ex.
workman Court Sitesh) namesan CW1/Y1. I was Sr. Administrative Officer at mostly Ex.
and order of WW1/M4 WW1/M5. considered anyagain of his were dated dutywas retrenchment members, 02/03/01, heard.
hours various grant written what of were Ex.
The previousbyMW1/5. reinstatement has can been judgments declared and on workman same there proceedings minutes it casewas agriculturalissue was thereafter. oftrying "Traveling of no.
shall something Deepati pursuitsmeeting happened to2,be level asThe over onat proceedings me framed Prakash would serious over night.
probation and the Principal" foundation tosame be be and showing the by IPremjeet charges directly cannot above my Principal for ofofLd.
ground included the one theof the say the inrelevant Grievance year Predecessor. misconduct Vs. by attendance order assertion that and going 'gainful andtheto same having Satender that Principal thethat Committee through against employment'.ofifbear entire Asbeen the his theevery Nath such, work officer my the of members disclosed controversy Bossworkman Iprecedent isproceed was not Nationalby offound and the to is
6. rendered back 'illegal', Copy wages theby of was same it I memo a say andthe ismatter when dated relevant concluded supposed of I was 01/03/01,time discretion to benoti.e that voidthere Ex.inthere of WW1/M6.
the the in year ab-initio wasthe labour meeting.
2001no and court and binding hence, andnow It is that I precedent inoperative; the order that of the
3. wages. Copy of extension supererogatory and the are signature we letter still college hold lying given atSmt.
the point inby rule the Aruna workman isA.
office simpleSitesh It of isdatedthe correct thatused college.
20/03/01, the tothat take ItI Ex. MW1/6.
discretion to deny Thus, from wrong amthe retired.
to suggest position of that I reinstatementam deposing and falsely.
back wages I being the
7.
33. the decide satisfactory, appellant unsuitable since meeting. instead result Copy In reinstatement
28.Centre they issue of is contrast SEE labour for that of in The holding :courtfor were thecomplaint that no.
probation orand Basic the said to (1) 2 case stated pare should prior job.
a work is this, employee have fullregister detailed Sciences; V.P. atcorrect dated can to to Above a received document down back show from later Ahujabe issue bewas 15/03/01, the would enquiry the extended AIR that stage fourth mentioned no.
wages directed very Ex.
Vs. application be document 1999 quantum 1.
proceeding the therein class basis CW1/X State also by should deemed original SC to of of tests, one of Ex.
of be employees and Ex.
983, mind to more termination retained WW1/6.
which always Punjab;
back behowever, order of giving WW1/M5.
wages wherein on grievance year.
isthiswas the continuing at bean on (2000) If are isher theheld opportunity order, record point.during alleged It granted not absent 3 to entire in it SCCexhaustive be till that servicewas minutesvitiated when save (Hindustan case further toyear, 239 also the of-a for law and (At this have seen the statement on page already stage Ld. AR for management Sh.
4.
39. exceptional automatic Copyconsequence Reference of memo reasons." is answered dated hone committee is correct of aand 21/03/01 that she hasIused accordingly. retrenchment issued have not to received been tocollect Award being thefoundfiled.
workman, isthe false passed. document I report illegal, have ExMW1/7. Copy we of have thecome awarda termination therefore, the is grantRajeev EXCW1/Y1 held to of be the Dayal illegal. relief andseeks Itit ofclasswas permission may held reinstatement be so that to that a and cross personsit full may examine back is have notwages entitled alongwith to get Motors
21.ISSUE his in incumbent orders.
workman law.
the In work Ltd. Vs. Tapan Kumar reported as (2002 6was SCC, 41; Indian the held with -said the alleged This a is No. respect to course case.
upon not be court 2Grievance probationer to this been heard, afound the The ofagainst deposed Ex.
then management arguments, language probationer witness.
in my
the
satisfactory, directed WW1/M6 Committee like management IVwith used temporary Allowed. hand hadSh.
the but itto was and R.S. employees the regard in have Meeting been ) still impugned came found services the Vashisth, come servant reviewed do to same held not up thenecessary who up is know with can order allegations onSecretary with by bear also used bethe 20/04/01 the in the terminated bytermination my to entitled found Hon'ble what proceedings to this be at court examined to to 10.30 on Supremebe order certainthat one ex-
on am long
5. be way Copyto Then sent to inaappropriate of position Mohanlal letter written refused against where signature Vs. bywork government theaward Bharat the at would point workman workman of atlawful her for full Electronics, A..... home back dated publicationon Itdoisand thewages 1981 23/03/01, correct ultimately basis within has (3) that Ex.
30ofactually SCC, IMW1/8.
days from become
215, the
the
something all benefits Railway Construction only of because continuous XXXXXXXit would service Co.this Vs. meeting be Ajay by Sh. Kumarbe to automatic. Rajeev reportedso.
Dayal, It was asLd. also (2003) acknowledged AR 4 SCC, 579; connection was held. It is correct
24. Grievance month's facie their as simply (3) shows rare.
principle CW1. stigmatic.
ownoftried notice.
Sh.
Although protection Court and In and R.S.
-it Jaswant Committee His wasto reinstatement since make theVashisth,used burden services observed itSingh records/complaint. wasproceedings itwith appointed to would look Secretary of cannot thatfull case terminatelike have proving the be back should by-termination as been their terminated said itthe being this wages have Iis issue decision the Principal services have when one was beenbest simplicitor ofhas arbitrarily fully again placed personal the piece onof the very members been coveredor reiteratedthe on ofon cast punitive record evidence account service the present upon said byafter without although the caseof in in theit that ever In since Hindustan for that management KendriyaITin understand Works Vidalaya English Vs. Its very Sangthan employees well. (supra), Some reported body the as onus 1979 to (2) prove SCC
6. M.P.receipt Copy State of ofElectricitycomplaint basis knowledge College.....
datedof false 11/03/01, of It report. the award. Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141; is the correct allegation Ex. MW1/9.
that I mentioned
had also filedin
was The
noticed concept
that must
some of Ihave
know
back
of the Roshangoes
approached wages earlier Lal alongwith judgments claimant, me for had workman assistance reinstatement indicated who thatfora since labour itspeak was court
27.
29.
32. management possession workman The In However, prescribed the the meeting. management unemployment complying as well. termination being present of management.
on most probation with Documents as had on per its case the civil probation. shifted the letter surprising orderown The also complaint.
suit period principles of to dated of or since Toworkman against the management my the withhold is 26/03/01 was Ld. admittedly workman.
of the workman It mytestimony is over, Predecessor natural such Ex.
representative arecorrect termination. justice the WW1/4 should kind that absolutely workman of that dated
- of court reads dischargeevidence have all false 08/06/04. Termination was It the was as witness called isunder:-
and did
on
order probation,
not
upon
Sh.
fabricated. However, order making R.S. stating the in 80, UP the State normal Textile is writing rule present Corporation ato kind grant in court.
ofVs. a reinstatement draft P.C. He and was Chaturvedi I just anwith employee helped reported full him back as of by (2005) wages 8, SCC,was
7.
40. considered Copy In after weighing view of be to performancethecomplaints ofcontinuation all the participating wrong falseand facts report to and suggest of against of in the fabricated the circumstances, that service workman, grievance theI was workman documents itself.may negligent Ex. committee. However, award MW1/10.
were in the my filed/tenderedin latest trend compensation by in lieu the is Then once management.
writing again it in down J.K. but I SyntheticsI am was aware not Vs. concerned K.P. that Agarwal he about wasthe s. reported as
36. management the well Vashisth, thatThe acknowledged
34. order for allegations view of entire Since the the the Executive terminating the appellant credibility on against settled Meru the""failed toSecretary background place However, respect duties, Screening basis law Yuva the his ofonhimself him, the same therefore, service of of of the Kendra in the was the March management. night facts Grievances he on isrecord previous point,passed.
who clearly Iduties no was the Sangathan performance 26, was 2001 isdoubt but notwho not suggests except judgments. neither confirmed". Surrounding shown burden stigmatic Vs. of has topresent one himself that toMehboob his having be prove It and duties in was present present that its failed inadministratively been Iobserved circumstances effect case to indone, termination Alam stand and the Lasker;is said that this not the by also if of
211).
(2) In Chowkidar.
meeting as such. I am I can not not aware say name about of any such that
8. even Copyreinstatement of management reinstatement of agenda and Sh.
appropriate backofis establishment was being wages.
Roshan meeting performing proceedingsreplaced Lal,datedcommittee.
my by separately 26/03/01, duties are theincompensation.
Ex.dayMW1/11. times.
being initiated In M/s against Lords 2007 after a LLR protracted 358, time misconducts person the and Hon'ble energy as I doalleged Chowkidar not evenSupreme consuming toGrievance have remember Court litigation been has what noticed during committed actually which the previous period the
25.one
31. court same the showing meeting service and MW1, However, document. of Then could called termination was Sh.
came that has technically"
Thereafter, not for General V.K. leaving Statement discharge denied illegal both have production of Nayyar Vol.
- and/or service It been having Besides the wasHaryana aside isThere above of was wrong passed not simplicitor of CW1 the ever unjustified the Section isthe based reliefs Roadways no to technical is without attended affidavit suggest being rules Officer solely would ofonly but on any Vs. holding for reproduced the aspects always filed reinstatement that inansuch Rudhan including order Committee the in lie Hawaldar Highan management. and is assessment enquiry hereunderSingh absolutely meeting.
upon
and of
Courtconsidering back proceedings of and The theunsatisfactory workman and wages (2005), Relevant for punitive appellant'sgiving easy entire inhave in5 the as the Homeopathic (2008) 2 SCC Laboratories must by the 479, it have saidletterwas Vs. Roshan held Ms. happened. that Lal Lissyathe Unnikunju in the Being event reported senior of as 2006 IV,
9. the Copy workman judgments just management of sustains and termination has Indraprastha workman Chaman concluded himself, officials i.eLal that College datedrepresentative and ultimately Sh. award V.K. for 26/03/01, ofany Principal Women, Nayyar, is back point toEx.
didbewages Section of College inMW1/12.
not told time.
appear that isOfficer becoming It (Admn.), though herare. willDr. To be SCC, undergone 591. The avide administrative Hon'ble isbe progressive Shamnath correct Courtthat dilution. officer, listed Marg, Ms. a Aruna In it few was Surender factors Siteshmy duty on was Kumar which to help Principal Verma the or awardVs. of Central back AD original portions opportunity documents reference:-
and work it stigmatic.
andof (Delhi), proceedings is Supreme the his to workman Court to 739, conduct cross the broughtorder As alsoabsolutely theGoverning in workman examination such, during who sheet witness Hon'ble by indicated the termination comes necessary to dated body.
probation bebox High managementwould to background heard 08/05/2000.
for
-There Court court ofread inbetter service the his Termination are and only ofasis defence.
under:-
and reasons noof Delhi rendered it the is For just he rule the held has appellant Itdecision the false who that workman for iscited not same
-asserts and was only of Stigmatic around reasons, the without fabricated thata case and 20 his quote reinstated, from he performance the will judgment:
by guide thebe denied employee, other Delhi. back officials. the wages termination It is which correct of thatwould probation there bewere due would toterminated him, have beenthe
10. Aruna wages Copy could ofbeletter Sitesh, of Principal/Chairman based. college dated grievance complaints Some inof 2001.
24/04/01, committee against these Ex. (at factors&MW1/13.
workmanthis Sh. in stage are: theareuniversity R.D. witness false andisAdministration Verma, Govt. Industrial judgments of the Tribunal, Supreme officials senior 1981 Court to (1) me SCR, andinDelhi 2001 789, High i.e itVicewasCourt held Principal, that to The conclude there may that be in management where and holding workman record. in no "Coming punitive. order any would It enquiry Heldstands confronted enquiry to was be
- arrive "(Sealed backthealso was "It rules.
they quite into at is held wages subjected test with directed thecorrect the know even governing well to original Consisting envelope and truth charges ato noifthat ofproduce sort explained the of opportunity the ofofcourt termination EX containing isas six complaint absolutely matter, per penalty then WW-
service persons, findsparawas thatof it for 1/M6). management the rules violative clause given that two necessaryregister no-fault probation management of fromto the onits ofthe was of is toemployees provisions no workman his directed award and longer avoided back i.e of to itresis to
-termination Held -
held to1.beNature Order has justified. been on Principal, the Dear doneface Sh.
However, Versor illegally of Roshan itwhen etc. was and Lal,It the is unjustifiably stigmaticfoundation obvious andthat and punitive for there as such was such- it Hon'ble an order is he who High isshort not signaturesof employment at point (whether permanent or temporary or
11.Incharge wages, exceptional suitable Copy the cases of areply question circumstances in accordance containing compensationdated (one) the workman will side 24/08/01 be ofwhether where with pages of law.
should anA appointment arethe false.
to are 1management, to back order be 3only thegranteddemand Itof is letter wages initials isopenedwrong dated reinstatement in three notice, should lieu and atto21/04/99, from ofthis not suggest Ex.
beandstage the the MW1/14.
awarded
reinstatement. full backfully wages or
wholly undeserved. term governing
daily It
wage was body stated
basis of
etc.) that trustees.any other I view can not would say be placing a only University be produce I.D. heard, Act partially integra.
examine
has as
the
When
any
toimpossible prove itRules.
well isfull said (and also otheraand thisas signatures Grievance the side that principles aCW ifThis so, disciplinary officer and case workman of proceedings 1not the the where is of of shown Ms. Committee of workman natural percentage).
enquiry
the
the was
management other Aruna management the of isappointed and justice grievance register). That initiated way Sitesh Proceedings the alsohas as depends round.on usually Principal no-one Icommittee come probation the shownhave through premise Itcase up uponcan and as put seen cannot with be being theaTermination thatcondemned becompetent absolutely facts there present for andare in the may Court an be was unsatisfactory Although held there whether toor be performance wrong is inequitable are therevarious towas in inform on holding e.g., recent any the you part when it that judgments specific ofas the non-stigmatic the legal your employee industry of the advisor might for Hon'ble of -but have overt Supremeclosedacts
2. Method while of selection and employment.
12. Copy premium Fileon circumstances beofan postal ofunwarranted cosigned the tomarking theconfirmation receipt, for one have minutes each one recordSecretary not Ex year ofbeen litigative case, the MW1/15.
Grievance any room. from was post.
filed who activity income 26/04/99.
placed intentionally Committee preside ofbefore receivedthe (Ld.Itemployer.
is over by AR Meetings the correct as the theOffice for employee during
3. Length the management management ofon service. is or directed not. to It has place been the very long
22. the down Courtfalse officer unheard serious the Theand relevant or management order and minutes and manipulated allegations granting meeting, couldmight management which period not even to be small of pasted show have that meeting. workman meeting of inhas though documents.
inwhat vide accountwas misconduct severe amount that Establishment been the in Itof they the passed was also has the is letter of register correct happened financialnot original directed on compensation were termination Committee without dated presented alternative at the that page partregister to doldrums admittedly was on in14/03/2000, holding representative 2produce of the and there employment ranging legal 26/03/2001. Ioriginal present were state the and delinquent or still a and where regular from in that tendered service case.
the the of or justified on enquiry Termination officer the Rs.servicethrough rules business but itand concerned 10,000/-
since ofof isisSh.
the hisa to the for the However, amounting 4. Time to in time.elapsedthe misconduct, same There after judgment, an may his opportunity have termination. deviation been. of It from hearing is wrong this to to rule the was employee also
20.Announced relevant Besides, factor record in management to the be itopen in isproceedings probation the taken thenote workman certainly court course also period were ofnot ofcontaining confronted are while the included biased. day). ofawarding thethe ItImy inworkman theam workman, notwages, is signatures back grievance wrong aware was during to in addition his cross to employeenone 25,000/-, would of have these suggest secured judgments that for an the employment lay down reason any that else formula there where.
were or By the very guidelines other to tone arrive
30. R.S. employees, of recognized Today the service During Vashisth, on several explanation and ofcourse 01/10/2008 factorsitabout all the thereSecretary was anythis workman of The contents extended committee suggest final vide observed mentioned upon where who has
- committee of arguments, is order that for thatinEX was held itbeen one MW-
examined dated workman order to Rudhan Iyear.
itwas be rejected, decided 1/M6.
transpired illegal 08/05/08. tonot It as Singh toprove services is CW1 as pursuantVol.
correct that well Being effective (supra). terminate with While Grievance as were that respect thereto at unjustified.
theThe Therefore, your aCommittee terms tofull the byIssueitsaid and scale is Inthereof. present in any management the order workman was and to show even that otherwise was could not legal have and been justified. summoned relevant the concerned isstigmatic imperative. senior officers Departmental other to me,(SUJATA thereenquiry words, was no was ifKOHLI) the employee need necessary.
for meistofound While to have the necessary and at examination, record.
portions observation committed formal proceedings conditions management no. tenor the It 2 said "In the iswas for enquiry of decided of The very the the held cross of amount. nature employee such misconduct ofwhich with resolution senior guide to judgment, Hon'ble service has against prove thatservices, examination certain thereafter of meeting representation terminated was been post in other the High the However, things, statedto tendered and it case although was plead giving ,initiated, documents these alleged management Court there officials.
the
conduct
of Iof
illegally". the toimplied inkind workmanthat J.U. you period be by am workman cannot culminating proceedings. an inthe the being ofthathe AdditionalAkhtar abasis rules that order witness was absolutely documents of and month's workman. are case Vol.
as be probation the in has of not under:-
being arendered District Iastraight Vs. terminating favour onus in was was gainfully notice termination AsUniversity neverunaware Management & finding reproduced regards that to exhibit Iwas was ofdo provethe jaclet Sessions w.e.f.
went not employed aprobation the of as the impugned workman. order long the formula Judge Non-Academic guilt;
Ex.hereunder:-
proceedings exceptional had period CW1/X1.
that from ofwould M/s never orderfor the of the date of relief awarding his termination----.
through ofabout 26.3.2001 administrativeextended remember back me this atso wages. in called any head. view as stage. more.
Allto Itofrelevant is your Presiding whenIt isunsatisfactory wrong meeting. Officer wrong to the suggest considerations The date to Labour suggest resolution work theCourt-II, that Iwill enter the service circumstances Markfed and Agro the time would reported elapsed be on as after the 2006 his employer. VIII termination AD However, (Delhi) was 33, insmaller the Kendriya Hon'ble in comparison, Vidyalya Delhi
1. before Statement was appear order been Employees verdict. Copy What not produced of the to More ISSUE No. 1(Relief)termination stigmatic of emerges at Establishment be were letter page that am orinnocuous byless and 1 I the grievance from "It upon ofam of it dereliction tendered by the management at this stage is may produced deposing dated Maximum management the is21/04/99, service would the deposing this, itself, Committee correct register on falsely pleadings committee beHon'ble thewould the a period Ex.
that next isonof falsely. on same Ex.
it motion duty, WW1/M1.
be ground never its Supreme and I date, of CW1/1.
was held would own was probation the Vol.
only saw addressed despite Karkardooma of stigmatic. appointed nor over constituted. Court be light Isympathy. a they am photocopy vitiated all period to of repeated Courts, observed a were evidence theday.
as There very is I if acalled I of discretionin that minutes led effect upon itofHigh also by was and the by be of the On 'What is alternative warnings, employment?, as of recorded infather yourwhile it was the view earlier that full Tribunal. Sanghtan Court backhas wages Full Vs. held responsible back am S.C.could that being two remember Probationer..... wages not Sharma, in betaken such awarded.
years would supporting person 2005 on cases, beof two any LLR record and theIt However, the normal one.is member 275, and compensation Irule correct workman beingamifpersonal while of only the of andEX Delhi.
that senior the file.
denying grievance workman as Iparty CW1/X1.
emphasising cannot per wasIPS has beobjecting thatbeen less thatto than inthe ita
2. Copy of memo dated 05/08/99, Ex. WW1/M2.
23.
35. must only
37. workman surprising substance cases the Grievance Arguments The workman where aestablish regular entireitas as Committee is the and REINSTATEMENT/BACKWAGES or the well found documents werehisorder allegations University committee working asA/R Icircumstances substantial Officer.
the false
have to
heard
the
were
be Iand
ex-facie document seen am stigmatic i.e management at produced asEx.
no norms gainful the not involved length namedastatement was doubt WW1/M2, necessitating of aware Probationer inand .stigmatic as but nature.
employment the Ld. Imoral itself rules.
Amar proceed not ARthe management.
shown as Ex.
the is at and for Nath was to Itturpitude MW1/1, to that original. the workman also departure". would to whether decide further Sharma, betime the bepunitive.
on Ex.
management Matter the of held considered dated the also MW1/2 claim part that could was Sincetoeven on ofagain & have had denythe 3, if short back relief term wages of back heemployment would wages With isotherwise at or discretion regards, the was be appointed entitled of to.
the without court, it was followingheld that the it wasproper for
3. Copy of extension claimant Mohand termination At letter Shriservice this dated Chaman Chand.
stage ofwas my 14/03/2000, 1this services.
Lal These terminated register Hawaldar two Ex.
isIt directed is orWW1/M3. person correct aboutisI to still that
(s) thebe back wages The principle to the20.4.01 was Sd/-emphatically workman, at page it has of this restated been heldregister Gujarat in now, and in North Steel state Tubes Est Karnatka Ltd. Vs. procedure the basis terminated order the delinquent very adjourned Ex. WW1/M4, claimant/workman employee Thewell of was etc., material rule founded called for the official. to award production services Ex.
reasons sealed show ofthat upon on working were civildocuments on MW1/4, of The record, back that the full same the of came language representatives ground the back of therefor. law he in management Ex.
in an was also original workman to Ex.
the the wages WW1/M5, know that used envelope. that not not a of light WW1/M1 college appellant minutes could in because at of to Grievance gainfully containing contract thethe arguments aproduce Ex.
and not later to order workman. of WW1/M6, had employed of my of be Ex.
thethe stage his proper.
failed ofWW1/M3 the Principal addressed Grievance Committee personal alleged termination signatures same the afterThe in Ex.
servicethe real misconduct.
his MW1/5and performance on Committee. object of there behalf termination. cannot service to wasand Ex.
of be
4. Copy
38. Keeping in view of written Yours explanation themy sincerely, facts and the circumstances workman dated of tokenthis case, 22/06/2000,workman is Ex. Gujarat Road Steel Trasporation Tubes Meeting Smt. workman bear Mazdoor XXXXxx Vs. may Aruna M. signature havebywas Sabha Sitesh Ld. Nagangauda, taken not AR atare (AIR forpoint heard place, still 1980, workman. 2007 I Acan working before SCin LLR 1896), not 340 say,the inof in that I the following even self The WW1/M4. In U.P. initial onus Statehas any Brasswarewhere.now therefore, I am Corporation shifted nottoaware theVs.workman. of any Udai Narain suchPandey, 2006 specifically
26.MW1/12. both of purport may gross Management his The ex-facie parties. negligence duties for enforced, offerand which administratively be My then most ofstigmatic.
in does findings appointment on college. Grievance the having handling ofthe Nil. not termination the next on Opportunity limit receipt documents TheItthis and issue Committee date is the language letter aspect. jurisdiction technically. correct thereof.... order no.
produced Ex.
of1 would given". used the was But that only WW1/2,management since the It issued, thereunder Reference workman be of the representative isoriginal dependent correct documents clause labour he could was may was register clearly that 5,on thencourts.
also in provides challenge my question reflect containing had show It findings was tothatthe i.e was not statement. present The nor aware.
said statement Management is being mayEX words:
employment
5. awarded which reinstatement would fetch with any continuity earning ofthat toheard.
service the employee, and with 50% including back alwaysCopy LLR 214, It came theof understood memo Hon'ble to be have dated Chokidar of documents Supreme reiterated (Dr. that written the Aruna when 20/02/01, and workman time Ex.
Court Sitesh) namesan CW1/Y1. I was Sr. Administrative Officer at mostly Ex.
and order of WW1/M4 any WW1/M5.
considered again of his were dutywas retrenchment members, hours various grant written what of were The previousbybeen reinstatement has can judgments declared and on workman same there proceedings minutes it casewas agriculturalissue was thereafter. oftrying "Traveling of no.
shall something Deepati meeting pursuitshappened to 2,be level asThe over onat proceedings me framed Prakash would serious over night.
probation and the Principal" foundation tosame be be and showing the by IPremjeet charges directly cannot above my Principal for ofofLd.
ground included the one theof the say the inrelevant Grievance year Predecessor. misconduct Vs. by attendance order assertion that and going 'gainful andtheto same having Satender that Principal the that Committee throughagainst ofifbear employment'. entire Asbeen the his theevery Nath such, work officer my the of members disclosed controversy Bossworkman Iprecedent isproceed was not Nationalby offound and the to is
6. rendered back 'illegal', Copy wages theby of was same it I memo a say andthe ismatter when dated relevant concluded supposed of I was 01/03/01,time discretion to benoti.e that voidthere Ex.inthere of WW1/M6.
the the in year ab-initio wasthe labour meeting.
2001no and court and binding hence, andnow It is that I precedent inoperative; the order that of the wages.
supererogatory and the are signature we still college hold lying atSmt.
the point in the rule ArunaisA.
office simpleSitesh It of is the correct used that college.
the tothat take ItI discretion to deny Thus, from wrong amthe retired.
to suggest position of that I reinstatementam deposing and falsely.
back wages I being the
7.
33. the decide satisfactory, appellant unsuitable since meeting. instead result Copy In reinstatement
28.Centre they issue of is contrast SEE labour for that of in The holding :courtfor were complaint that no.
probation or the and Basic the said to (1) 2 case stated pare should prior job.
a work is this, employee have fullregister detailed Sciences; V.P. atcorrect dated can to to Above a received document down back show from later Ahujabe issue bewas 15/03/01, the would enquiry the extended that stage fourth mentioned wages AIR no.
directed very Ex.
Vs. application be document 1999 quantum 1.
proceeding the therein class basis CW1/X State also by should deemed original SC to of of tests, one of Ex.
of be employees and Ex.
983, mind to more termination retained WW1/6.
which always Punjab;
back behowever, order ofgiving WW1/M5.
wages wherein on grievance year.
isthiswas the continuing at bean on (2000) If are isher theheld opportunity order, record point.during alleged It granted not absent 3 to entire in it SCCexhaustive be till that servicewas minutesvitiated when save (Hindustan case further toyear, 239 also the of-a for law and (At this have seen the statement on page alreadystage Ld. AR for management Sh.
39. exceptional automatic Reference reasons."
consequence is answered hone committee is correct of aand that she hasIused accordingly. retrenchment have not to received been Award beingcollect filed.
isthe found false passed. document I report illegal, have Copy we of have thecome awarda termination therefore, the is Rajeev EXCW1/Y1 held grant to of be the Dayal illegal. relief andseeksIt it ofclasswas permission may held reinstatement be so that to that a and crossit persons full may examine back is have notwages entitled alongwith to get Motors
21.ISSUE his in incumbent orders.
workman law.
the In work Ltd. Vs. Tapan Kumar reported as (2002 6was SCC, 41; Indian the held with -said the alleged This a is No. respect to course case.
uponnot be court 2Grievance probationer to this been heard, afound the The ofagainst deposed Ex.
then management arguments, language probationer witness.
in my
the
satisfactory, directed WW1/M6 Committee like management IVwith used temporary Allowed. hand had Sh.
the but itto was and R.S. employees the regard in have Meeting been ) still impugned came found services the Vashisth, come servant reviewed do to same held not up thenecessary who up iswith can know order allegations onSecretary with by bear also used bethe 20/04/01 the in the terminated bytermination my to entitled found Hon'ble what proceedings to this be at court examined to to 10.30 on Supremebe order certainthat one ex-
on am longbe way Thento sent to inaappropriate position Mohanlal refused against where signature Vs.work government theaward Bharat at would point workman of atlawful her for full Electronics, A..... home back publicationon Itdoisand thewages1981 correctultimately basis within has (3)30 that ofactually SCC, Iacknowledged days from become 215, the the something all benefits Railway Construction only of because continuous XXXXXXXit would service Co.this Vs. meeting be Ajay by Sh. Kumarbe to automatic. Rajeev reportedso.
Dayal, It was asLd. also (2003) AR 4 SCC, 579; connection was held. It is correct
24. Grievance month's facie their as simply (3) shows rare.
principle CW1. stigmatic.
ownoftried notice.
Sh.
Although protection Court and In and R.S.
-it Jaswant Committee Histo was since make theVashisth, reinstatement used burden services observed itSingh records/complaint. wasproceedings itwith appointed to would look Secretary of cannot thatfull case terminatelike have proving the be back should by-termination as been their terminated said itthe being this wages have Iis issue decision the Principal services have when one was beenbest simplicitor ofhas arbitrarily fully again placed personal the piece onof the very members been coveredor reiteratedthe on ofon cast punitive record evidence account service the present upon said byafter without although the caseof in in theit that ever In since Hindustan for that management KendriyaITin understand Works Vidalaya English Vs. Its very Sangthan employees well. (supra), Some reported body the as onus 1979 to (2) prove SCC M.P.receipt State ofElectricity basis knowledge College..... of false of It report.
is the award. Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141;the correct allegation that I mentioned had also filedin was The noticed concept that must some of Ihave know back of the Roshangoes approached wages earlier Lal alongwith judgments claimant, me for had workman assistance reinstatement indicated who thatfora since labour itspeak was court
27.
29.
32. management possession workman The In However, prescribed the the meeting. management unemployment complying as well. termination being present of management.
on most probation with on Documents as had per its case the civil probation. shifted the letter surprising orderown The also complaint.
suit period principles of to dated of or since Toworkman against the management my the withhold is 26/03/01 was Ld. admittedly workman.
of the workman It mytestimony is over, Predecessor natural such Ex.
representative arecorrect termination. justice the WW1/4 should kind that absolutely workman of that dated
- of court reads dischargeevidence have all false 08/06/04. Termination was It the was as witness called isunder:-
and did
on
order probation,
not
upon
Sh.
fabricated. However, order making R.S. stating the in 80, UP the State normal Textile is writingrule present Corporation ato kind grant in court.
ofVs. a reinstatement draft P.C. He and was Chaturvedi I justan with employee helped reported full him back as of by (2005) wages 8, SCC,was
40. considered In view after weighing to be all thecomplaints ofcontinuation the participating wrong falseand facts to and suggest of against inservice fabricated the circumstances, thatgrievance theI was workman documents itself.may negligent committee.
However, award were in the my filed/tenderedin latest trend compensation by in lieu the is Then once management.
writing again it in down J.K. but I SyntheticsI am was aware not Vs. concerned K.P. that Agarwal he about wasthe s. reported as
36. management the well Vashisth, thatThe acknowledged
34. order for allegations view of entire Since the the the Executive terminating the appellant on against settled Meru the""failed credibility toSecretary background place However, respect duties, Screening basis law Yuva the his ofonhimself him, the same therefore, service of of of the Kendra in the was the March management. night facts Grievances he on isrecord previous point,passed.
who clearly Iduties no was the Sangathan performance 26, was 2001 isdoubt but notwho not suggests except judgments. neither confirmed". Surrounding shown burden stigmatic Vs. of hastopresent one himself that toMehboob his having be prove It and duties in was present present that its failed inadministratively been Iobserved circumstances effect case to indone, termination Alam stand and the Lasker;is said that this not the by also if of
211).
(2) In Chowkidar.
meeting as such. I am I can not not aware say name about of any such that even reinstatement of management reinstatement and Sh.
appropriate back is establishment was being wages.
Roshan performing replaced Lal, proceedings committee.
my dutiesareby separately theincompensation.
day times. being initiated In M/s against Lords 2007 after a LLR protracted 358, time misconducts person the and Hon'ble energy as I doalleged Chowkidar not evenSupreme consuming toGrievance have remember Court litigation been has what noticed during committed actually which the previous period the
25.one
31. court same the showing meeting service and MW1, However, document. of Then could called termination was Sh.
came that has technically"
Thereafter, not for General V.K. leaving Statement discharge denied illegalboth have production of Nayyar Vol.
- and/or service It been having Besides the wasHaryana aside isThere above of was wrong passed notsimplicitor of CW1 the ever unjustified the Section isthe based reliefs Roadways no to technical is without attended affidavit suggest being rules Officer solely would ofonly but on any Vs. holding for reproduced the aspects always filed reinstatement that inansuchRudhan including order Committee the in lie Hawaldar Highan management. and is assessment enquiry hereunderSingh absolutely meeting.
upon
and of
Courtconsidering back proceedings of and The theunsatisfactory workman and wages (2005), Relevant for punitive appellant'sgiving easy entire inhave in5 the as the Homeopathic (2008) 2 SCC Laboratories must by the 479, it have was said Roshan Vs. held Ms. happened. that Lal Lissyathe Unnikunju in the Being event reported senior of as 2006 IV, workman judgments the management just andsustains has Indraprastha workman Chaman concluded himself, officials i.eLal that College representative and ultimately Sh. award V.K. for ofany Principal Women, Nayyar, is back point to didbe intold wages Section of College not time.
appear that isOfficer becoming It (Admn.), though herare. willDr. To be SCC, undergone 591. The avide administrative Hon'ble isbe progressive Shamnath correct Courtthat dilution. officer, listed Marg, Ms. a Aruna In it few was Surender factors Siteshmy duty on was Kumar which to help Principal Verma the or awardVs. of Central back AD original portions opportunity documents reference:-
and work it stigmatic.
andof (Delhi), proceedings is Supreme the his to to 739, conduct workman Court cross the order brought As alsoabsolutely theGoverning in workman examination such, during who sheet witness Hon'ble by indicated the termination comes necessary to dated body.
probation bebox High managementwould to background heard 08/05/2000.
for
-There Court court ofread inbetter service the his Termination are and only ofasis defence.
under:-
and reasons noof Delhi rendered it the is For just he rule the held has appellant Itdecision the false who that workman for iscited not same
-asserts and was only of Stigmatic around reasons, the without fabricated thata case and 20 his quote reinstated, from he performance the will judgment:
by guide thebe denied employee, other Delhi. back officials. the wages termination It is which correct of thatwould probation there bewere due would toterminated him, have beenthe Aruna wages could Sitesh, of Principal/Chairman be based. college Someinof 2001.
grievance complaints committee against these (at factors&workman this Sh. in stage are: theareuniversity R.D. witness false andisAdministration Verma, Govt. Industrial judgments of the Tribunal, Supreme officials senior 1981 Court to (1) me SCR, andinDelhi 2001 789, High i.e itVicewas Court held Principal, that to The conclude there may that be in management where and holding workman record. in no "Coming punitive. order any would It enquiry Heldstandsconfronted enquiry to wasbe
- arrive "(Sealed backthealso was "It rules.
they quite into at is held wages subjected test with directed thecorrect the know even governing well to original Consisting envelope and truth charges ato noifthat ofproduce sort explained the of opportunity the ofofcourt termination EX containing isas six complaint absolutely matter, per penalty then WW-
service persons, findsparawas thatof it for 1/M6). management the rules violative clause given that two necessaryregister no-fault probation management of fromto the onits ofthe was of is toemployees provisions no workman his directed award and longer avoided back i.e of to itresis to
-termination Held -
held to1.beNature Order has justified. been on Principal, the Dear doneface Sh.
However, Versor illegally of Roshan itwhen etc. was and Lal,It the is unjustifiably stigmaticfoundation obvious andthat and punitive for there as such was such- it Hon'ble an order is he who High isshort not of employment (whether permanent or temporary or wages, exceptional Incharge suitable the cases a signatures question circumstances in accordancecontaining compensation (one) the workman will side be at where with point ofwhether pages of law.
should anA appointment are the false.are 1management, to back order be 3only Itof is grantedletter wages initials isopenedwrong dated reinstatement in three should lieu and atto21/04/99, from ofthis not suggest beandstage the the awarded reinstatement. full backfully wages or wholly undeserved. term governing daily It wage was body stated basis of etc.) that trustees.any other I view can not would say be placing a only University be produce I.D. heard, Act partially integra.
examine
has as
the
When
any
toimpossible prove itRules.
well isfull said (and also aand other thisas signatures Grievance the side that principles aCW ifThis so, disciplinary officer and case workman of proceedings 1not the the where is of of shown Ms. Committee of workman natural percentage).
enquiry
the
the was
management other Aruna management the of isappointed and justice grievance register). That initiated way Sitesh Proceedings thealso has as depends round.on usually Principal no-one Icommittee come probation the shownhave through premise Itcase up uponcan and as put seen cannot with be being theaTermination thatcondemned becompetent absolutely facts there present for andare in the may Court an be was unsatisfactory Although held there whether toor be performance wrong is inequitable are therevarious towas in inform on holding e.g., recent any the you part when it that judgments specific ofas the non-stigmatic the legal your employee industryof the advisor might for Hon'ble of -but have overt Supremeclosedacts
2. Method while of selection and employment.
premium Fileon circumstances bean ofunwarranted cosigned the for one havetomarking theconfirmation minutes each one recordSecretary not year ofbeen litigative case, the Grievance any room. from was post.
filed who activity income 26/04/99.
placed intentionally Committee preside ofbefore receivedthe (Ld.Itemployer.
is over by the AR Meetings correct as the theOffice for employee during
3. Length the management ofon management service. is or directed not. to It has place been the very long
22. the down Courtfalse officer unheard serious the Theand relevant or management order and minutes and manipulated allegations granting meeting, couldmight management which period not be small even to of pasted show have that meeting. workman meeting of inhas though documents.
inwhat vide accountwas misconduct severe amount that Establishment been the in Itof they the passed was also has the is letter of register correct happened financialnot original directed on compensation were termination Committee without dated presented alternative at the that page partregister to doldrums admittedly was on in14/03/2000, holding representative 2produce of the and there employment ranging legal 26/03/2001. Ioriginal present were state the and delinquent or still a and where regular from in that tendered service case.
the the of or justified on enquiry Termination officer the Rs.servicethrough rules business but itand concerned 10,000/-
since ofof isisSh.
the hisa to the for the However, amounting 4. Time to in time.
elapsedthe misconduct, same There after judgment, an may his opportunity have termination. deviation been. of It from hearing is wrong this to to rule the was employee also relevant Announced factor in therecord to be itopen in isproceedings probation the taken thenote workman certainly court course period were ofnotare ofcontaining while the included biased. day). ofawarding the inworkman ItImy am the notwages, is signatures back grievance wrong aware was to in addition to employeenone 25,000/-, would of have these suggest secured judgments that for an the employment lay down reason any that else formula there where.
were or By the very guidelines other to arrive tone
30. R.S. employees, of recognized Today the service During Vashisth, on several explanation management the workman and of 01/10/2008 about course all the it factors Secretary therewas and to anythis workman of The show contents extended committee suggest final vide observed mentioned upon where even who has committee that of arguments, is order that for was held that thereof. otherwise it in been EX one was MW-
examined dated workman order to Rudhan year.
it be rejected, decided I was could not 1/M6.
transpired illegal 08/05/08.
to
legal It
as
Singh
nottoprove have services is CW1 as pursuantVol.
correct that well (supra). terminate present and been Being effective with While Grievance as justified. were that respect thereto in at unjustified.
the Therefore, your any summoned Thea Committee terms tofull the by relevantIssue itsaid and scale is the order concerned was isstigmatic imperative.
senior - Departmental officers In to otherme,(SUJATA thereenquiry words, was no was ifKOHLI) the employee need necessary.
for meistofound While to have the necessary and at record. portions observation committed formal proceedings conditions management no. tenor the It 2 said "In the iswas for enquiry of decided of The very the the held cross of amount. nature employee such misconduct ofwhich resolution senior guide to judgment, Hon'ble service has services, against prove that examination thereafter of meeting representation terminated was been postin other the High the However, things, statedto tendered and it case although was plead giving ,initiated, these alleged management Court there officials.
the
conduct
of Iof
illegally". the toimplied inkind workmanthat J.U. you period be by am workman cannot culminating proceedings. an inthe the ofthathe AdditionalAkhtar abasis rules that order witness was absolutely documents of and month's workman. are case Vol. be probation the in has of beingnot arendered District Iastraight Vs. terminating favour onus in was was gainfully notice termination AsUniversity neverunaware Management & finding reproduced regards that to exhibit Iwas was ofdo provethe jaclet Sessions w.e.f.
went not employed aprobation the of as the impugned workman. order long the formula Judge Non-Academic guilt;
Ex.hereunder:-
proceedings exceptional had period CW1/X1.
that from ofwould M/s never orderfor the of the date of relief awarding his termination----.
through ofabout 26.3.2001 administrativeextended remember back methis atso wages. in called any head. view as stage. more.
Allto Itofrelevant is your Presiding whenIt isunsatisfactory wrong meeting. Officer wrong to the suggest considerations The date to Labour suggest resolution work theCourt-II, that Iwill enter the service circumstances Markfed and Agro the time would reported elapsed be on as after the 2006 his employer. VIII termination AD However, (Delhi) was 33, insmaller the Kendriya Hon'ble in comparison, Vidyalya Delhi Statement was appear order been Employees before verdict. What not produced of the to More ISSUE No. 1(Relief)termination stigmatic emerges at Establishment be were page that am orinnocuous byless and grievance from "It upon ofam of it dereliction tendered by the management at this stage is may produced deposing 1 I the Maximum management the is service would the deposing this, itself, Committee correct register on falsely pleadings committee beHon'ble thewould the a period that next isonof falsely.
on same Ex.
it motion be duty, ground never its Supreme and I date, of CW1/1.
was held would own was probation the Vol.
only saw addressed despite Karkardooma of stigmatic. appointed nor over constituted. Court be light Isympathy. a they am photocopy vitiated all period to of repeated Courts, observed a were evidence theday.
as There veryis I if acalled I of discretionin that minutes led effect upon itofHigh also by was and the by be of the On 'What is alternative warnings, employment?, as of recorded infather yourwhile it was the view earlier that full Tribunal. Sanghtan Court backhas wages Full heldback Vs. responsible am S.C.could that being two remember Probationer..... wages not Sharma, in betaken such awarded.
years would supporting person 2005 on record cases, beof two any LLRand theIt However, the normal one.is member 275, and compensation Irule correct workman beingamifpersonal while of only the of andEX Delhi.
that senior the file.
denying grievance workman as Iparty CW1/X1.
emphasising cannot per wasIPS has beobjecting thatbeen less thatto than inthe ita
23.
35. must only
37. workman surprising substance cases the Grievance Arguments The workman where aestablish regular entireitas as Committee is the and REINSTATEMENT/BACKWAGES or the well found documents werehisorder allegations University committee working asA/R Icircumstances substantial Officer.
the false
have to
heard
the
were
be Iand
ex-facie document seen am stigmatic i.e management at produced asEx.
no norms gainful the not involved length namedastatement was doubt WW1/M2, necessitating of aware Probationer inand .stigmatic as but nature.
employment the Ld. Imoral itself rules.
Amar proceed not ARthe management.
shown as Ex.
the is at and for Nath was to Itturpitude MW1/1, to that original. the workman also departure". would to whether decide further Sharma, betime the bepunitive.
on Ex.
management Matter the of held considered dated the also MW1/2 claim part that could was Sincetoeven on ofagain & have had denythe 3, if short back reliefwages term of back employment he wouldWith wages isotherwise at or discretion regards, the was be appointed entitled of to.
the without court, it was followingheld that the it wasproper for claimant Mohand termination At Shri service this Chaman Chand.
stage ofwas my 1this services.
Lal These terminated register Hawaldar two isIt directed is orperson correct aboutisI to still that
(s) the be back wages The principle to the20.4.01 was Sd/-emphatically workman, at page it has of this restated been heldregister Gujarat in now, and in North Steel state Tubes Est Karnatka Ltd. Vs. procedure theEx.
basis terminated order the delinquent very adjournedWW1/M4, claimant/workman employeewell of was etc., material The rule ofthatfounded called for the official. to award production services Ex.
reasons sealed show upon on working were civildocuments on MW1/4, of The record, back that the samefull the of lawcame language representatives ground the back of management therefor.
he in Ex.
in
an
was
also original workman to Ex.
the the wages WW1/M5, know that used envelope. that not not light WW1/M1 college appellant minutes could in because at of to Grievance gainfully containing a contract thethe arguments aproduce Ex.
and not later to order workman. of WW1/M6, had employed of my of be Ex.
thethe stage his proper.
failed ofWW1/M3 the Principal addressed Grievance Committee personal alleged termination signatures same the afterThe in Ex. the real misconduct.
his MW1/5and service cannot performance on Committee. object of there behalf termination.service to wasand Ex.
of be
38. Keeping in view Yours themy sincerely, facts and circumstances of tokenthis case, workman is Gujarat Road Steel Trasporation Tubes Meeting Smt. workman bear Mazdoor XXXXxx Vs. may Aruna M. signature havebywas Sabha Sitesh Ld. Nagangauda, taken not AR atare (AIR forpoint heard place, still 1980, workman. 2007 I Acan working before SCin LLR 1896), not 340 say,the in of in that I the following even self The In U.P. initial onus Statehas any Brasswarewhere.now therefore, I am Corporation shifted nottoaware theVs.workman. of any Udai Narain suchPandey, 2006 specifically
26.MW1/12. both of purport may gross Management his The ex-facie parties. negligence duties for enforced, offerand which administratively be My then most ofstigmatic.
in does findings appointment on college. Grievance the having handling ofthe Nil. not termination the next on Opportunity limit receipt documents TheItthis and issue Committee date is the language letter aspect. jurisdiction technically. correct thereof.... order no.
produced Ex.
of1 would given". used the was But that only WW1/2,management since the It issued, thereunder Reference workman be of the representative isoriginal dependent correct documents clause labour he could was may was register clearly that 5,on thencourts.
also in provides challenge my question reflect containing had show It findings was tothatthe i.e was not statement. present The nor aware.
said statement Management is being mayEX words:
employment awarded which of reinstatement would Chokidar documents thewith fetch and workman Ex. any continuity mostlyWW1/M4 earninghis were ofthat dutywastoheard. service the hours written employee, and were The with bybeen 50% including back LLR alwaysIt 214,came the understood Hon'ble to be have (Dr. that Supreme reiterated written Aruna when timeCourt Sitesh) namesan and order of considered anyagain of retrenchment members, various grant what of previous reinstatement has can judgments declared and CW1/Y1. I was Sr. Administrative Officer at on workman same there proceedings minutes it casewas agriculturalissue was thereafter. oftrying "Traveling of no.
shall something Deepati pursuitsmeeting happened to 2,be level asThe over onat proceedings me framed Prakash would serious over night.
probation and the Principal" foundation tosame be be and showing the by IPremjeet charges directly cannot above my Principal for ofofLd.
ground included the one theof the say the inrelevant Grievance year Predecessor. misconduct Vs. by attendance order assertion that and going 'gainful andtheto same having Satender that Principal the that Committee throughagainst ofifbear employment'. entire Asbeen the his theevery Nath such, work officer my the of members disclosed controversy Bossworkman Iprecedent isproceed was not Nationalby offound and the to is rendered back 'illegal', wages theby was same it I a say andthe ismatter when relevant concluded supposed of I wastime discretion to benoti.e that voidthere inthere of the the in year ab-initio wasthe labour meeting.2001
no and court and binding hence, andnow It is that I precedent inoperative; the order that of the wages.
supererogatory and the are signature we still college hold lying atSmt.
the point in the rule ArunaisA.
office simpleSitesh It of is the correct used that college.
the tothat take ItI discretion to deny Thus, from wrong amthe retired.
to suggest position of that I reinstatementam deposing and falsely.
back wages I being the
33.
the decide satisfactory, appellant unsuitable since meeting. instead result In reinstatement
28.Centre they issue of is contrast SEE labour for that inThe holding :courtfor werethat no.
probation or the and Basic the said to (1) 2 case stated pare should prior job.
a work is this, employee have fullregister detailed Sciences; V.P. atcorrect can to to Above a received from document down back show later Ahujabe issue bewas the would enquiry the extended that stage fourth mentioned wages AIR no.
directed very Ex.
Vs. document 1999 quantum application be 1.
proceeding the therein class basis CW1/X State by should deemed original SC to of of tests, one of of be employees and Ex.
983, mind to more termination retained which always Punjab;
back behowever, order ofgiving WW1/M5.
wages wherein on grievance year.
isthiswas the continuing at bean on (2000) If are her held opportunity order, record during alleged is the It granted point. not absent 3 to entire in it SCCexhaustive be till that servicewas minutesvitiated when save (Hindustan case further toyear, 239 also the of-a for law and (At this have seen the statement on page alreadystage Ld. AR for management Sh.
39. exceptional automatic Reference reasons."
consequence is answered hone committee is correct of aand that she hasIused accordingly. retrenchment have not to received been Award beingcollect filed.
isthe found false passed. document I report illegal, have Copy we of have thecome awarda termination therefore, the is grantRajeev EXCW1/Y1 held to of be the Dayal illegal. relief andseeksIt it ofclasswas permission may held reinstatement be so that to that a and crossit persons full may examine back is have notwages entitled alongwith to get Motors his in incumbent orders.
workman law.
thework Ltd. Vs. Tapan Kumar reported as (2002 6was SCC, 41; Indian ISSUE the held with -said alleged This a is No. respect toprobationer case.
uponnot be court 2Grievance to this been heard, afound the Theagainst deposed Ex.
then management language probationer witness.
in my
the
satisfactory, directed WW1/M6 Committee like management IVwith used temporary Allowed. hand had Sh.
the but to and R.S. employees the regard in have Meeting been ) still impugned came services the Vashisth, come servant reviewed do to same held not up the who up iswith can know order allegations onSecretary with by bear also used bethe 20/04/01 the in the terminated termination my to entitled found Hon'ble what proceedings to at be examined to to 10.30 on Supremebe order certainone ex-
on am longbe way Thento sent to inaappropriate position Mohanlal refused against where signature Vs.work government theaward Bharat at would point workman of atlawful her for full Electronics, A..... home back publicationon Itdoisand thewages1981 correctultimately basis within has (3)30 that ofactually SCC, Iacknowledged days from become 215, the the something all benefits Railway Construction only of because continuous XXXXXXX it would service Co.this Vs. meeting be Ajay by Sh. Kumarbe to automatic. Rajeev reportedso.
Dayal, It was asLd. also (2003) AR 4 SCC, 579; connection was held. It is correct
24. month's facie their as simply (3) shows rare.
principle CW1. stigmatic.
ownoftried notice.
Sh.
Although protection Court and In and
-itR.S.Jaswant Histo was since make theVashisth, reinstatement wasitSingh used records/complaint. burden services observed itwith appointed to would look Secretary of cannot thatfull case terminatelike have proving the be back by-termination as been their itthe being terminated said this wages Iis issue decision the Principal services have when one was best simplicitor ofhas arbitrarily fully again personal the piece onof the very members been coveredor reiteratedthe ofon cast punitive evidence account service the present upon saidwithout although after caseof in in theit that ever In since Hindustan for that management KendriyaITin understand Works Vidalaya English Vs. Its very Sangthan employees well. (supra), Some reported body the as onus 1979 to (2) prove SCC M.P.receipt State ofElectricity basis knowledge College..... of false of It report. the award. Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141;is the correct allegation that I mentioned had also filedin was The noticed concept that must some ofcaseIhave know back of the Roshangoes approached wages earlier Lal alongwith judgments claimant, me for had workman assistance reinstatement indicated who thatfora since labour itspeak was court
27.
29.
32. possession workman The In However, prescribed the unemployment the meeting. management complying as well. termination being present of management.
most probation with on Documents as had per the civil probation. shifted the letter surprising order The also complaint. suit period principles of to dated of since Toworkman against management my the withhold is 26/03/01 was Ld. admittedly workman. of the It mytestimony is over, Predecessor natural such Ex.
representative arecorrect termination. justice the WW1/4 kind that absolutely workman of that dated
- of court reads dischargeevidence all false 08/06/04. Termination was It the was as witness isunder:-
and did
on
order probation,
not
However, order Sh. fabricated. making R.S. stating in 80, UP the normal State Textile writingrule is Corporation present atokind grant in court.
ofVs. areinstatement draft P.C. He andwas Chaturvedi I just an with employee helped reported fullhimback as of by (2005) wages 8, SCC,was
40. considered In view after weighing to be all thecomplaints ofcontinuation the participating wrong falseand facts to and suggest of against inservice fabricated the circumstances, thatgrievance theI was workman documents itself.may negligent committee.
However, award were in the my filed/tenderedin latest trend compensation by in lieu the is Then once management.
writing again it in down J.K. but I SyntheticsI am was aware not Vs. concerned K.P. that Agarwal he about wasthe s. reported as
36. the well Vashisth, thatThe acknowledged
34. order for allegations view of entire Since the the the Executive terminating the appellant the""failed credibility background onSecretary against settled Meru However, respect duties, Screening basis law Yuva his him,ofonhimself the therefore, service of of of the Kendra in the was the March management. night facts Grievances he is previous point,passed.
who the Sangathan performance 26, clearly Iduties no was was 2001 isdoubt notwho not suggests except judgments. confirmed". Surrounding shown burden stigmatic Vs. of hastopresent one himself that toMehboob his be prove It and duties in was present its failed inadministratively Iobserved circumstances present that effect Alam case to stand in termination and the Lasker;is said that not the by also if of
211).
(2) In Chowkidar.
meeting as such. I am I can not not aware say name about of any such that even reinstatement of management reinstatement and Sh.
appropriate back is establishment was being wages.
Roshan performing replaced Lal, proceedings committee.
my dutiesareby separately theincompensation.
day times. being initiated In M/s against Lords 2007 after a LLR protracted 358, time misconducts person the and Hon'ble energy as I doalleged Chowkidar not evenSupreme consuming to remember have Court litigation been has what noticed during committed actually which the previous period the
25.one
31. same the showing meeting service and MW1, However, document. of Then could termination was Sh.
came that has technically"
Thereafter, not General V.K. leaving Statement discharge denied illegalboth have of Nayyar Vol.
- and/or service It been having Besides the wasHaryana aside isThere above of was wrong passed notsimplicitor CW1 the ever unjustified the Section is based reliefs Roadways no to technical is without attended affidavit suggest being rules Officer solely would ofonly but on any Vs. holding for reproduced the aspects always filed reinstatement that inansuchRudhan including order the in lie Hawaldar an management. and is assessment High upon and enquiry Singh hereunder absolutely meeting. of Courtconsidering back of and The theunsatisfactory workman and wages (2005), Relevant for punitive appellant'sgiving easy entire inhave as5 the the Homeopathic (2008) 2 SCC Laboratories must by the 479, it have was said Roshan Vs. held Ms. happened. that Lal Lissyathe Unnikunju in the Being event reported senior of as 2006 IV, workman judgments the management just andsustains has Indraprastha workman Chaman concluded himself, officials i.eLal that College representative and ultimately Sh. award V.K. for ofany Principal Women, Nayyar, is back point to didbe intold wages Section of College not time.
appear that isOfficer becoming It (Admn.), though herare. willDr. To be SCC, undergone 591. The aworkman administrative Hon'ble isbe progressive Shamnath correct Courtthat dilution. officer, listed Marg, Ms. a Aruna In it few was Surender factors Siteshmy duty on was Kumar which to help Principal Verma the or awardVs. of Central back AD portions opportunity documents reference:-
and work it stigmatic.
andof (Delhi), proceedings is Supreme the Court his to to 739, conduct cross the brought As alsoabsolutely theGoverning in workman examination such, during who witness Hon'ble by indicated the termination comes necessary to body.
probation bebox High managementwould to background heard for
-There Court court ofread inbetter service the his Termination are and only ofasis defence.
under:-
and reasons noof Delhi rendered it the is just he rule the held has appellant Itdecision false who that workman for iscited not
-asserts only of Stigmatic and was around the without fabricated thata case and 20 his quote reinstated, from he performance the will judgment:
by guide thebe denied employee, other Delhi. back officials. the wages termination It is which correct of thatwould probation there bewere due would toterminated him, have beenthe Aruna wages could Sitesh, of Principal/Chairman be based. college Someinof 2001.
grievance complaints committee against these (at factors&workman this Sh. in stage are: theareuniversity R.D. witness false andisAdministration Verma, Govt. Industrial judgments of the Tribunal, Supreme officials senior 1981 Court to (1) me SCR, andinDelhi 2001 789, High i.e itVicewas Court held Principal, that to The conclude there may that be in where and holding workman record. in no "Coming punitive. order any would It enquiry Heldstands confronted enquiry to be
- arrive "(Sealed backthewas "It rules.
they quite into at is wages subjected test held with thecorrect the know even governing well to original Consisting envelope and truth charges a noifthat of sort explained the of opportunity the ofofcourt termination EX containing isas six complaint absolutely matter, per penalty then WW-
persons, findsparawas thatof it for 1/M6). management the violative clause given that two necessaryregister no-fault probation management fromto the on ofthe was of is to provisions no workman his directed award and longer avoided back of to itresis to
-termination Held -
held to1.beNature Order has justified. been on Principal, the Dear done face Sh.
However, Versor illegally of Roshan itwhen etc. was and Lal,It the is unjustifiably stigmaticfoundation obvious andthat and punitive for there as such was such- it Hon'ble an order is he who High isshort not of employment (whether permanent or temporary or wages, exceptional Incharge suitable the cases a signatures question incircumstances accordancecontaining compensation (one) the workman will side beat where with point ofwhether pages of law.
should anA appointment are the false.are 1management, to back order be 3only Itof is grantedletter wages initials isopenedwrong dated reinstatement in three should lieu and atto21/04/99, from ofthis not suggest beandstage the the awarded reinstatement. full backfully wages or wholly undeserved. term governing daily It wage was body stated basis of etc.) that trustees.any other I view can not would say be placing a only be produce I.D. heard, Act partially integra.
examine
has as
the
When
any
toimpossible prove itheld well isfull said (and also aand other thisas signatures Grievance the side that principles aCW ifThis so, disciplinary officer and case workman of proceedings 1not the the where is of of shown Ms. Committee of workman natural percentage).
enquiry
the
the was
management other Aruna management the of isappointed and justice grievance register). That initiated way Sitesh Proceedings thealso has as depends round.on usually Principal no-one Icommittee come probation the shownhave through premise Itcase up uponcan and as put seen cannot with be being theaTermination thatcondemned becompetent absolutely facts there present for andare in the may Court an be was unsatisfactory Although there whether toor be performance wrong is inequitable are therevarious towas in inform on holding e.g., recent any the you part when it that judgments specific ofas the non-stigmatic the legal your employee industryof the advisor might for Hon'ble of -but have overt Supremeclosedacts
2. Method while of selection and employment.
premium Fileon circumstances bean ofunwarranted cosigned the for one havetomarking theconfirmation minutes each one Secretary not year ofbeen litigative case, record the Grievance any room. from was post.
filed who activity income 26/04/99.
placed intentionally Committee preside ofbefore receivedthe (Ld.Itemployer.
is over by the AR Meetings correct as the theOffice for employee during
3. Length the management ofon management service. is or directed not. to It has place been the very long the down Courtfalse officer unheard the and relevant serious or and granting meeting, management order could and manipulated might management which period allegations notto be small even pasted show have that meeting. workman of inhas amount though documents.
inwhat vide severe that Establishment been was account misconduct the Itof they the passed was also hasis letter of register correct happened financialnot directed on compensation were termination Committee without dated thepresented alternative at that page part to doldrums admittedly was on in14/03/2000, holding representative 2produce of the there employment and ranging legal 26/03/2001. Ioriginal present state the and delinquent or still a and where regular from in that service case.
the the of or justified on enquiry Termination officer the Rs.service rules business but itand concerned 10,000/-
since ofof isis the hisa to the for the However, amounting 4. Time to in time.
elapsedthe misconduct, same There after judgment, an may his opportunity have termination. deviation been. of It from hearing is wrong this to to rule the was employee also relevant Announced factor in the record to be itopen in isproceedings probation the taken thenote workman certainly court course period were ofnotare ofcontaining while the included biased. day). ofawarding the inworkman ItImy am the notwages, is signatures back grievance wrong aware was to in addition to employeenone 25,000/-, would of have these suggest secured judgments that for an the employment lay down reason any that else formula there where.
were or By the very guidelines other to arrive tone
30. Today the employees, of recognized service During on several explanation management the workman and ofcourse 01/10/2008 factorsabout all the it therewas and to anythis workman of The show contents extended committee suggest final vide observed mentioned upon where even has committee that of arguments, is order that forheld that thereof. otherwise it in been EX one was MW-
dated workman order to Rudhan year.
it be rejected, decided I not was could 1/M6.
transpired illegal 08/05/08.
to
legal It
Singh
nottoprove have services isas pursuantVol.
correct that well (supra). terminate present and been Being effective While Grievance as justified. were that thereto in at unjustified.
the Therefore, your any summoned Thea Committee terms full by relevantIssue it and scale is the order concerned was isstigmatic imperative.
senior - Departmental officers In to otherme,(SUJATA thereenquiry words, was no was ifKOHLI) the employee need necessary.
for meistofound While to have the necessary and at portions observation committed formal proceedings conditions management no. tenor the It 2 said "In the iswas for enquiry of decided very ofamount. the the held cross of nature employee such misconduct ofwhich senior guide to judgment, Hon'ble service has services, against prove that examination thereafter of meeting representation terminated was been postin other the High the However, things, to stated and it case giving although plead ,initiated, these was alleged management Court there officials.
the
conduct
of Iof
illegally". the toimplied inkind workmanthat J.U. period be youam workman cannot culminating proceedings. an inthe the ofthathe AdditionalAkhtar abasis rules that order was absolutely month's documents of and workman. are case Vol. be probation the in has of beingnot arendered District Iastraight Vs. terminating favour onus in was gainfully notice termination AsUniversity neverunaware Management & finding reproduced regards that to Iwas was ofdo provethe jaclet Sessions w.e.f.
went not employed aprobation the of the impugned workman. order long the formula Judge Non-Academic guilt;
hereunder:-
proceedings exceptional had period that from ofwould neverfor M/s order theof the date of relief awarding his termination----.
through ofabout 26.3.2001 administrativeextended remember back methis atso wages. in called any head. view as stage. more.
Allto Itofrelevant is your Presiding whenIt isunsatisfactory wrong meeting. Officer wrong to the suggest considerations The date to Labour suggest resolution work theCourt-II, that Iwill enter the service circumstances Markfed and Agro the time would reported elapsed be on as after the 2006 his employer. VIII termination AD However, (Delhi) was 33, smaller in the Kendriya Hon'ble in comparison, Vidyalya Delhi was appear order been Employees before verdict. What not produced ofthe to More ISSUE No. 1(Relief) termination stigmatic emerges Establishment be werethat am orinnocuous byless andfrom "It uponam of it dereliction tendered by the management at this stage is may produced deposing I the grievance Maximum management is service would the deposing this, itself, Committee correct on falsely pleadings committee beHon'ble thewould the a period that next onof falsely.
on same it motion be duty, ground never its Supreme and I date, of was held would own was probation the Vol.
only saw addressed despite Karkardooma of stigmatic. appointed nor over constituted. Court be light Isympathy. a they am photocopyrepeated vitiated all period toof Courts, observed a were evidence theday.
as There veryis I if acalled I of discretionin that minutes led effect itofHigh upon also by was and the by be of the On 'What is alternative warnings, employment?, as of recorded infather yourwhile it was the view earlier that full Tribunal. Sanghtan Court backhas wages Full heldback Vs. responsible am S.C.could that being two remember Probationer..... wages not Sharma, in be taken such awarded.
years person would supporting 2005 on record cases, beof two any LLRand theIt However, the normal one.is member 275, and compensation Irule correct workman beingamifpersonal while of only the of andEX Delhi.
that senior the file. denying grievance workman as Iparty CW1/X1.
emphasising cannot per wasIPS has beobjecting thatbeen less thatto than inthe ita
35. must only
37. workman surprising substance cases the Grievance The workman where aestablish regular entire itas as Committee is the and REINSTATEMENT/BACKWAGES or the well found documents hisorder allegations University committee working asA/R Icircumstances substantial Officer. the false have tothewere be Iand ex-facie document seen am stigmatic i.e management produced asEx.
no norms gainful the not involved namedastatement was doubt WW1/M2, necessitating of aware Probationer inand stigmatic as but nature.
employment the Ld. moral itself rules.
Amar not ARthe management.
shown as Ex.
theat and for Nath was to Itturpitude is MW1/1, that original. the workman also departure". would to whether further Sharma, betime the bepunitive.
on Ex.
management Matter of held considered dated the also MW1/2part that could was Sinceeven toofagain & have had the deny 3, if short back reliefwages term of back heemployment wouldWith wages isotherwise at or discretion regards, the was be appointed entitled of to.
the without
court, it wasfollowingheld that the it proper
was for
claimant Mohand
termination At Shri service this Chaman Chand.
stage ofwas my 1this services.
Lal These terminated register Hawaldar two isIt directed is orperson correct isI to about still that
(s) the be back wages The principle to the20.4.01 was Sd/-emphatically workman, at page it has of this restated been heldregister Gujarat in now, and in North Steel state Tubes Est Karnatka Ltd. Vs. procedure theEx.
terminated order the delinquent very adjournedWW1/M4, claimant/workman employeewell was etc., The rule ofthatfounded called for the official. to award production services Ex.
reasons sealed show uponworking were civildocuments on MW1/4, of The back that the samefull the of lawcame language representatives ground the back of management therefor.
he in Ex.
in
an
was
also original workman to Ex.
the wages WW1/M5, know that used envelope. that not not WW1/M1 college appellant minutes could in because at of to Grievance gainfully containing a contract thethe aproduce Ex.
and not later to order workman. of WW1/M6, had employed of my of be Ex.
thethe stage his proper.
failed ofWW1/M3 the Principal Grievance alleged Committee personal termination same the after signatures The in Ex. the real misconduct.
his MW1/5and service cannot performance Committee. object of there termination.service to was and Ex.
be
38. Keeping in view Yours themy sincerely, facts and circumstances of token this case, workman is Gujarat SteelState Tubes Smt. workman bear Mazdoor XXXXxx Aruna signature was Sabha by Sitesh not at (AIR are point heard still 1980, A working before SCin 1896), the in of Road The InTrasporation initial U.P. onus Meeting has any Vs. Brassware may where.
therefore, M. have now I Ld. Nagangauda, am taken Corporation shifted AR not for place, to aware the workman.
2007Vs. I Udai can workman. of LLR not anyNarain 340 say, such inIthat the even Pandey, following self 2006 specifically
26.MW1/12. of his purport may gross Management The ex-facie enforced, negligence duties for offer and which administratively be then most ofstigmatic. does inappointment on college. Grievance the having handling ofthe Nil. not termination the next Opportunitylimit receipt documents TheItthis and Committee date is the language letter aspect. jurisdiction technically. correct thereof.... order produced Ex.
of used given". the was But that only WW1/2,management since the It issued, thereunder Reference workman of the representative isoriginal correct documents clause labour he could was may was register clearly that 5,then courts.
also in provides challenge question reflect containing had show It was tothat the i.e was not statement. present The nor aware.
said statement Management is being mayEX words:
employment awarded which of reinstatement would Chokidar documents thewith fetch and workman Ex. any continuity mostlyWW1/M4 earninghis were ofthat dutywastoheard. service the hours written employee, and were The with bybeen 50% includingback LLR alwaysIt 214, came the understood Hon'ble to be have (Dr. that Supreme reiterated written Aruna when timeCourt Sitesh) namesan and order of considered anyagain of retrenchment members, various grant what of previous reinstatement has can judgments declared and CW1/Y1. I was Sr. Administrative Officer at workman same there proceedings minutes it casewas agricultural was thereafter. oftrying "Traveling of shall something Deepati pursuitsmeeting happened to be level over The onat proceedings methe Prakash would serious over Principal"night.
probation and foundation tosame bebe and showing theIPremjeet charges directly cannot above Principal for ofofthe ground included one theof the say the inrelevant Grievance year misconduct Vs. by attendance order assertion that and going 'gainful andtheto same having Satender that Principal the that Committee throughagainst ofifbear employment'. entire been the his theevery Nath work officer my the of members disclosed controversy Bossworkman iswas not precedent by of Nationalfound and theis rendered back 'illegal', wages the by was same it I a say andthe ismatter when relevant concluded supposed of I wastime discretion to benoti.e that voidthere inthere of the the in year ab-initio wasthe labour meeting.2001
no and court and binding hence, andnow It is that I precedent inoperative; the order that of the wages.
supererogatory and the are signature we still college hold lying atSmt.
the point in the rule ArunaisA.
office simpleSitesh It of is the correct used that college.
thetothat take ItI discretion to deny Thus, from wrong amthe retired.
to suggest position of that I reinstatementam deposing and falsely.
back wages I being the
33. satisfactory, appellant unsuitable since meeting. instead
28.Centre the result In reinstatement theyof is contrast SEE labour for that in The holding for were :court that probation or the and Basic the said to (1) case stated pare should job.
a work is this, employee have fullregister detailed Sciences; V.P. atcorrect down can toAbove a received from document back show later be Ahuja bewas the would enquiry the extended that stage fourth mentioned wages AIR directed very Ex.
Vs. document 1999 quantum application be proceeding the therein class basis CW1/X State by should deemed original SC to of of tests, one of of be employees and Ex.
983, mind to more termination retained which always Punjab;
back behowever, order ofgiving WW1/M5.
wages wherein on grievance year.
was isthis the continuing at bean on (2000) If are her held opportunity order, record during alleged is the It granted point. not absent 3 to entire in it SCCexhaustive be till that servicewas minutesvitiated save (Hindustan further when case toyear, 239 also the of-a for law and (At this stage have seen the statement on page already Ld. AR for management Sh.
39. exceptional automatic Reference reasons."
consequence is answered hone committee is correct of aand that she hasIused accordingly. retrenchment have not to received been Award beingcollect filed.
isthe found false passed.document I report illegal, have Copy we of have thecome awarda termination therefore, the is grantRajeev EXCW1/Y1 held to of be theDayalillegal.
relief andseeksIt it ofclasswas permission may held reinstatement be so that to that a and crossit persons full mayexamine back is have notwages entitled alongwith to get Motors his in incumbent orders.
workman law.
thework Ltd. Vs. Tapan Kumar reported as (2002 6was SCC, 41; Indian the held with -said alleged This respecta istoprobationer case.
uponnot be court Grievance to this been heard, afound the Theagainst deposed Ex.
then management language probationer witness.
in my
the
satisfactory, directed WW1/M6management IV Committee like with used temporary Allowed. hand had Sh.
the but to and R.S. employees the regard in have Meeting been ) still impugned came services the Vashisth, come servant reviewed do to same held not up the who up iswith can know order allegations onSecretary with by bear alsoused bethe 20/04/01 the in the terminated termination my to entitled found Hon'ble what proceedings to at be examined to to 10.30 on be Supreme order certainone ex-
amon longbe way Thento sent to inaappropriate position Mohanlal refused against where signature Vs.work government theaward Bharat at would point workman of atlawful her for full Electronics, A..... home back publicationon Itdoisand thewages1981 correctultimately basis within has (3)30 that actually of SCC, Iacknowledged days from become 215, the the something all benefits Railway Construction only of because continuous XXXXXXX it would service Co.this Vs. meeting be Ajay by Sh. Kumarbe to automatic. Rajeev reportedso.
Dayal, It was asLd. also (2003) AR 4 SCC, 579; connection was held. It is correct month's facie their as simply (3) shows rare. CW1. protection Court principle stigmatic.
ownoftried Sh.
and notice.
In and
-itR.S.Jaswant Histo Vashisth, was reinstatement since make wasitSingh used records/complaint. services observed itwith appointed towould look Secretary cannot thatfull case terminatelike have the be back by-termination as been their itthe being terminated said wages Iis the decision Principal services have when one was best simplicitor of the arbitrarily fully again personal piece onof the very members coveredor reiteratedthe ofonservice punitive evidence the account present said after without although caseof in in it that ever In since Hindustan for that management KendriyaITin understand Works Vidalaya English Vs. Its very Sangthan employees well. (supra), Some reported body the as onus 1979 to (2) prove SCC M.P.receipt State ofElectricity basis knowledge College..... of false of It report.
is the award. Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141;the correct allegation that I mentioned had also filedin was The noticed concept that must some ofcaseIhave know back of the Roshangoes approached wages earlier Lal alongwith judgments claimant, me for had workman assistance reinstatement indicated who thatfora since labour itspeak was court
27.
29.
32. possession workman The In However, prescribed the unemployment the meeting. complying as well. termination being present of management.
most probation with on Documents had the civil probation. shifted the letter surprising The also complaint. suit dated period principles of to since Toworkman against management the withhold is 26/03/01 was admittedly workman.
of the It
natural mytestimony
is
over, such Ex.
representative arecorrect termination. justice the WW1/4 kind that absolutely workman
- of that of court reads evidence discharge all false Termination was It the was as witness isunder:-
and did
on
order probation,
not
Sh.
fabricated. order making R.S. stating 80, UP the normal State Textile writingrule is Corporation present atokind grant in court.
ofVs. areinstatement draft P.C. He andwas Chaturvedi I just an with employee helped reported fullhimback as of by (2005) wages 8,bySCC, was
40. considered In after weighing view to be of all the participating complaints continuation the factswrong false to and suggest against in fabricated andofcircumstances, the that service grievance the I was workman documents itself. negligent maythat committee.
However, award were in my filed/tenderedin the latest trend compensation in lieutheis Then once management.
writing again it in down J.K. but I SyntheticsI am was aware not Vs. concerned K.P. Agarwal he about wasthe s. reported as
36. the well Vashisth, thatThe acknowledged
34. order for entire allegations Since the theExecutive terminating the appellant the""failed credibility background onSecretary against Meru However, respect duties, Screening basis Yuva his him,of himself the therefore, service ofinof of Kendra the was the March management. night facts Grievances he is previous passed.
who Sangathan performance 26, clearly Iduties no was was 2001 isdoubt notwho not suggests except judgments. confirmed". Surrounding shown stigmatic Vs. of haspresentone himself that toMehboob his beIt and duties in was present its failed inadministratively Iobserved circumstances present effect Alam case to stand in and the is said that Lasker; not the by also if
211).
(2) In Chowkidar.
meeting as such. I am I can not not aware say name about of any such that even reinstatement of management reinstatement and Sh.
appropriate back is establishment was being wages.
Roshan performing replaced Lal, proceedings committee.
my dutiesareby separately theincompensation.
day times. being initiated In M/s against Lords 2007 after a LLR protracted 358, time misconducts person the and Hon'ble energy as I doalleged Chowkidar not evenSupreme consuming to remember have Court litigation been has what noticed during committed actually which the previous period the
25.one
31. same the showing meeting and MW1, However, document. of Then could termination Thereafter, Sh.
came that has technically" not General V.K. leaving Statement discharge denied both have of Nayyar Vol.
- Besides service It been having the wasHaryana aside is There above ofwas wrong passed notsimplicitor CW1 the ever the Section is based reliefs Roadways no to technical is without attended affidavit suggest being rules Officer solely ofonly but on any filed reinstatement Vs. holding for reproduced the aspects that inansuchRudhan including order the in High Hawaldar an management. and is assessment enquiry Singh hereunder absolutely meeting.
and of Courtconsidering back of and The and wages (2005), Relevant for punitive giving appellant's the5 easy entire inhave the Homeopathic (2008) 2 SCC Laboratories must by the 479, it have was said Roshan Vs. held Ms. happened. that Lal Lissyathe Unnikunju in the Being eventreported senior of as 2006 unsatisfactory IV, workman judgments the management just andsustains has Indraprastha workman Chaman concluded himself, officials i.eLal that College representative and ultimately Sh. award V.K. for ofany Principal Women, Nayyar, is back point to didbe intold wages Section of College not time.
appear that isOfficer becoming It (Admn.), though herare.
willDr. To be SCC, undergone 591. The a conduct administrative Hon'ble isbe progressive Shamnath correct Courtthat dilution. officer, listed Marg, Ms. a Aruna In it few was Surender factors Siteshmy duty on was Kumar which to help Principal Verma the or awardVs. of Centralback AD portions opportunity documents reference:-
and work stigmatic.
(Delhi), proceedings Supreme andof Courthis to to 739, cross the brought As alsoabsolutely theGoverning in workman examination such, during witness Hon'ble by indicated the termination necessary to body.
probationbebox High managementwould background heard for
-There Courtofread inbetter service the his Termination are only ofasis defence.
under:-
and reasons noof Delhi rendered the just rule the held has appellant Itdecision falsethat workman for iscited
- not only of Stigmatic and was around the without a case fabricated and20 quote reinstated, from he performance the will judgment:
by guide thebe denied employee, other Delhi. back officials. the wages termination It is which correct of thatwould probation there bewere due would toterminated him,been have the Aruna wages could Sitesh, of Principal/Chairman be based. college Someinof 2001.
grievance complaints committee against these (at factors&workman this Sh. in stage are: theareuniversity R.D. witness false andisAdministration Verma, Govt. Industrial judgments of the Tribunal, Supreme officials senior 1981 Court to (1) me SCR, andinDelhi 2001 789, High i.e itVicewas Court held that to The Principal, conclude there may that be in where and holding workman record. in "Coming punitive. no order any would It enquiry Held stands confronted enquiry to be
- arrive "(Sealed backthewas "It rules.
they quite into at is wages subjected test held with the correct the know even governing well to original Consisting envelope and truth charges a noifthat of sort explained the of opportunity the ofofcourt termination EX containing isas six complaint absolutely matter, per penalty then WW-
persons, findsparawas thatof it for 1/M6). management the violative clause given that two register necessary no-fault probation management fromto the on ofthe was of is to provisions no workman his directed award and longer avoided back itresof to is to
-heldHeld - Order to1.beNature justified. on Principal, the Dear face Sh.
However, Versor of Roshan itwhen etc. wasLal,It stigmatic the is foundation obvious andthat punitive for there such was - Hon'ble an order High isshort not of employment (whether permanent or temporary or wages, exceptional Incharge suitable the cases a signatures question circumstances in accordancecontaining compensation (one) the workman will side beat where with point ofwhether pages of law.
should anA appointment are the false.are 1management, to back order be 3only Itof is grantedletter wages initials isopenedwrong dated reinstatement in three should lieu and atto21/04/99, from this of not suggest beandstage the the awarded reinstatement. full backfully wages or wholly undeserved. term governing daily It wage was body stated basis of etc.) that trustees.any other I view can not would say be placing a only be produce I.D. heard, Act partially integra. examine as the itheld When any well isfull said (and also aand other as signatures Grievance the side that principles aCW ifThis so, disciplinary officercase workman of proceedings 1 of the the where is of shown Ms. Committee of workman natural percentage).
enquiry the was management Aruna management the of isappointed and justice grievance register). That initiated Sitesh Proceedings thealso has as usually Principal depends on no-one Icommittee come probation the shownhave throughup upon premise can and asseenput with be being theaTermination thatcondemned competent absolutely facts thereand present arein may Court an be was unsatisfactory impossible Although there whether to or be performance wrong is inequitable are therevarioustowas in inform on holding e.g., recent any the you part when it that judgments specific ofas the non-stigmatic the legal your employee industryof case the advisor might for Hon'ble of -but have overt closed Supreme acts
2. Method while of selection and employment. premium Fileon circumstances bean ofunwarranted cosigned the for one havetomarking theconfirmation minutes each one Secretary not year ofbeen litigative case, record the Grievance any room. from was post.
filed who activity income 26/04/99.
placed intentionally Committee preside ofbefore receivedthe (Ld.Itemployer.
is over by theAR Meetings correct as the theOffice for employee during
3. Length the management ofon management service. is or directed not. to It has place been the very long the down Courtfalse officer unheard serious the order and relevant or and granting meeting, and manipulated management allegations couldmight which period not be small even pasted have that meeting. workman of inhas though documents.
inwhat vide was account misconduct amountsevere Establishment been the Itof they passed was also hasis letter of register correct happened financialnot directed on compensation were Committee without dated thepresented alternative at that page part to doldrums admittedly on in14/03/2000, holding representative 2produce of the and there employment ranging 26/03/2001. Ioriginal present state the and delinquent or still a where regularfrom in that service case.
the the of oron Rs.
enquiry Termination officer the service rules business 10,000/- and concerned sinceofofisthe the his the a to However, amounting 4. Time to in time.
elapsedthe misconduct, same There after judgment, an may his opportunity have termination. deviation been. of It from hearing is wrong this to to rule the was employee also relevant Announced factor in the record to be itopen in isproceedings probation the taken thenote workman certainly court course period were ofnotare ofcontaining while the included biased. day). ofawarding the inworkman ItImy am the notwages, is signatures back grievance wrong aware was to in addition to employeenone 25,000/-, would of have these suggest secured judgments that for an the employment lay down reason any that else formula there where.
were or By the very guidelines other to arrivetone
30. employees, of recognized Today the service During explanation management and on 01/10/2008 several ofcourse factorsabout all the it therewas and anythis workman of The contents extended committee suggest final vide observed mentioned upon where even has committee of arguments, is order that forheld that thereof. otherwise in been EX one MW-
dated workman order to Rudhan year.
it be rejected, decided I was could 1/M6.
transpired illegal 08/05/08.
to It Singh nottoprove have services isas pursuantVol.
correct that well (supra). terminate present been Being effective While Grievance as were that thereto in your any summoned at unjustified.
the Therefore, a Committee terms full by Issue itand scale theis order concerned was isstigmatic imperative.
senior - Departmental officers In to otherme,(SUJATA thereenquiry words, was no was ifKOHLI) the employee need necessary.
for meistofound While to have the necessary and at observation committed formal proceedings conditions management no. tenor the It 2 said "In the iswas foramount. enquiry of decided very the the held of nature employee such misconduct ofwhich senior guide to judgment, Hon'ble service has against prove thatservices, thereafter of meeting representation terminated was been postin other the High the However, things, to stated and it case plead giving although ,initiated, these was alleged management Court there officials. the conduct Iof illegally". the toimplied inkind that J.U. you period be am workman cannot culminating proceedings. an in thethe ofthathe Additional Akhtar abasis rules that order was absolutely documents of and month's workman. case Vol. be probation thein hasof notarendered District Iastraight Vs. terminating favour onus in was gainfully notice termination AsUniversity neverunaware Management & finding regards that to Iwas was ofdo provethe jaclet Sessions w.e.f.
went not employed aprobation the of the impugned workman. order long the formula Judge Non-Academic guilt;
proceedings exceptional had period that from ofwould neverfor M/s order theof the date of relief awarding his termination----.
through ofabout 26.3.2001 administrativeextended remember back methis atso wages. in called any head. view as stage. more.
AlltoItofrelevant is your Presiding whenIt isunsatisfactory wrong meeting. Officer wrong to the suggest considerations The date to Labour suggest resolution work theCourt-II, that Iwill enter the service circumstances Markfed and Agro the time would reported elapsed be on as after the 2006 his employer. VIII termination AD However, (Delhi) was 33, smaller in the Kendriya Hon'ble in comparison, Vidyalya Delhi was appear order been Employees before verdict. What not produced ofthe to More ISSUE No. 1(Relief) termination stigmatic emerges Establishment be werethat am orinnocuous byless and the grievance from uponam of it dereliction tendered by the management at this stage is may produced deposing I Maximum management service would the deposing this, itself, Committee on falsely pleadings committee beHon'ble thewould the a periodof next on falsely. on same motionit be duty, ground never its Supreme and date, of held would own was probation the Vol.
only saw addressed despite Karkardooma of stigmatic. nor over constituted. Court be light Isympathy. a they am photocopyrepeated vitiated all period toof Courts, observed a were evidence theday.
There very is I ifcalled I of discretionin that minutes led effect itofHigh upon also by was and the by be of the On 'What is alternative warnings, employment?, as of recorded infather while your it was the view earlier that full Tribunal. Sanghtan Court backhas wages Full heldback Vs. responsible am S.C.could that being two remember wages not Sharma, in be taken such awarded.
years person would supporting 2005 on record cases, beof two any LLRand theHowever, the normal one. member 275, and compensation Irule workman beingamifpersonal while of andonly the ofEX Delhi.
senior the file. denying grievance workman as CW1/X1.
emphasising cannot party per IPS has beobjecting thatbeen less thatto than inthe ita
35. must only
37. workman surprising substance cases the Grievance The workman where aestablish regular entire itas as Committee is the and REINSTATEMENT/BACKWAGES or the well found documents hisorder allegations University committee asA/R Icircumstances substantial Officer. the false have tothewere be Iand ex-facie document seen am stigmatic i.e management produced Ex.
no norms gainful the not involved named was doubt WW1/M2, necessitating of inandaware stigmatic as but nature.
employment statement the Ld. moral itself rules.
Amar notARthe management.
shown as Ex.
the and for Nath was to Itturpitude is MW1/1, that original. workman also departure". would to whether further Sharma, bethe bepunitive.
on Ex.
management Matter held the also considered dated MW1/2part that could was Sinceeven toofagain & have had the deny 3, if short back reliefwages term of back heemployment wouldWith wages isotherwise at or discretion regards, the was be appointed entitled of to.
the without
court, it wasfollowingheld that the it proper
was for
claimant Mohand
At Shri service
this Chaman
Chand.
stage was
1this Lal
These
terminated register Hawaldar two orperson is directed isI to about still
(s) the be back wages The principle to the20.4.01 was Sd/-emphatically workman, at page it has of this restated been heldregister Gujarat in now, and in North Steel state Tubes Est Karnatka Ltd. Vs. procedure theEx.
terminated order the delinquent very adjournedWW1/M4, claimant/workman employeewell was etc., The rule ofthatfounded called for the official. to award production services Ex.
reasons sealed show uponworking were civilon MW1/4, of The back that the samefull the of lawcame language representatives ground the back of management therefor.
he in Ex.
in
an
was
also original workman to the wages WW1/M5, know that used envelope. that not not collegeappellant minutes could in because at of to Grievance gainfully containing a contract the the aproduce Ex.
and not later order workman. of WW1/M6, had of employed of my be the the stage his proper.
failed ofthe Principal Grievance alleged Committee personal termination same the after signatures The in Ex. the real misconduct.
his MW1/5and service cannot performance Committee. object of there termination.service to was and Ex.
be
38. Keeping in view Yours the Arunasincerely, facts was and circumstances of this case, workman is Gujarat SteelState Tubes Smt. workman Mazdoor XXXXxx Sabha by Sitesh not(AIR are heard still 1980, working before SC 1896), thein Road The InTrasporation initial U.P. onus Meeting has any Vs. Brassware may where.
therefore, M. have now I Ld. Nagangauda, am taken Corporation shifted ARnot for place, to aware the workman.
2007Vs. I Udai can workman. of LLR not anyNarain 340 say, such inIthat the even Pandey, following self 2006 specifically
26.MW1/12. of his purport may gross Management The ex-facie enforced, negligence duties for offer and which administratively be then most ofstigmatic. does inappointment on college. Grievance the handling ofthe Nil. not termination the next Opportunitylimit documents TheItthis and Committee date is the language letter aspect. jurisdiction technically. correct order produced Ex.
of used given". the was But that only WW1/2,management since the issued, thereunder Reference workman of the representative original documents clause labour he could was may was register clearly 5,then courts.
also in provides challenge question reflect containing had show It was tothat the i.e was not statement. present The nor aware.
said statement Management is being may EX words:
employment awarded which of reinstatement would Chokidar thewith fetch and any continuity workman mostly earninghis were ofthat toheard.
service duty the and hours employee, were The with 50% includingback LLR alwaysIt 214, came the understood Hon'ble to be have (Dr. that Supreme reiterated written Aruna when timeCourt Sitesh) namesan and order of considered anyagain of retrenchment members, various grant what of previous reinstatement hascan been judgments declared and CW1/Y1. I was Sr. Administrative Officer at workman same there proceedings minutes it casewas agricultural was thereafter. oftrying "Traveling of shall something Deepati pursuitsmeeting happened to be level over The onat the proceedings Prakash would serious over Principal"night.
probation and foundation tosame bebe and showing IPremjeet charges directly cannot above for ofofthe ground included one theof the say the inrelevant Grievance year misconduct Vs. by attendance order assertion that going 'gainful andtheto having Satender that Principal the that Committee through against employment'.ofifentire been the his theevery Nath work officer the of members disclosed controversy Bossworkman iswas not precedent by of Nationalfound and theis rendered back 'illegal', wages the by was same it I a say andthe ismatter when relevant concluded supposed of I wastime discretion to benoti.e that voidthere inthere of the the in year ab-initio wasthe labour meeting.2001
no and court and binding hence, andnow It is that I precedent inoperative; the order that of the wages.
supererogatory and the
are
we still
college
hold lying
theSmt. in the rule Aruna office isam Sitesh simple of the used that college.
theto discretion take It to deny Thus, from wrong amthe retired.
to suggest position of that I reinstatement deposing and falsely.
back wages I being the
33. satisfactory, appellant unsuitable since meeting. instead
28.Centre the result In reinstatement theyof is contrast SEE labour for that in The holding for were :court that probation or the and Basic the said to (1) case stated pare should job.
a work is this, employeefullregister detailed Sciences; V.P. atcorrect down can toAbove a from document back show later be Ahuja bewas the would enquiry the extended that stage fourth mentioned wages AIR directed very Ex.
Vs. 1999 quantum application be proceeding the therein class basis CW1/X State by should deemed original SC to of of tests, one of of be employees and 983, mind to more termination retained which always Punjab;
back behowever, order of giving wages wherein on grievance year.
was isthis the continuing at bean on (2000) If are her held opportunity order, record during alleged is thegranted not absent point. 3 to entire in it SCCexhaustive be till that was minutes service vitiated save (Hindustan further when case toyear, 239 also the of-a for law and (At this stage have seen the statement on page already Ld. AR for management Sh.
39. exceptional automatic Reference reasons."
consequence is answered hone committee of aand she hasused accordingly. retrenchment not to been Award beingcollect filed. false is passed. found I report illegal, have Copy we of have thecome awarda termination therefore, the is grantRajeev EXCW1/Y1 held to of be theDayalillegal.
relief andseeksIt it ofclasswas permission may held reinstatement be so that to that a and cross it persons full mayexamine back is have not wages entitled alongwith to get Motors his in incumbent orders.
workman law.
thework Ltd. Vs. Tapan Kumar reported as (2002 6was SCC, 41; Indian the held with -said alleged This respecta istoprobationer case.
uponnot be court Grievance to this been heard, afound the Theagainst deposed then management language probationer witness.
in my
the
satisfactory, directed management IV Committee like with used temporary Allowed. hand had Sh.
the but to R.S. employees the regard in have Meeting been ) still impugned came services Vashisth, come servant to reviewed do held not up the who up is know with can order allegations onSecretary with by alsoused bethe 20/04/01 the in the terminated termination to entitled found Hon'ble what proceedings to at be examined to to 10.30 on be Supreme order certainone ex-
amon longbe way Thento sent to inaappropriate position Mohanlal refused against where Vs.work government theaward Bharat workman of atlawful her for full Electronics, home back on publication and wages the 1981 ultimately basis within has (3)30 actually of SCC, days from become 215, the the something all benefits Railway Construction only of because continuous XXXXXXX it would service Co.this Vs. meeting be would Ajay by Sh. Kumarbe to do automatic. Rajeev reportedso.
Dayal, It was asLd. also (2003) acknowledged AR 4 SCC, 579; connection was held. It is correct month's facie their as simply (3) shows rare. CW1. protection Court principle stigmatic.
ownoftried Sh.
and notice.
In and
-itR.S.Jaswant Histo Vashisth, was reinstatement since make useditSingh records/complaint. services observed itwith towould look Secretary cannot thatfull case terminatelike have the be back -termination as been their being terminated said wages Iis the itdecision services have when one was best simplicitor of the arbitrarily fully again personal piece on the very members coveredor reiterated ofonservice punitive evidence the account present said after without although caseof in in it that ever In since Hindustan for that management KendriyaITin understand Works Vidalaya English Vs. Its very Sangthan employees well. (supra), Some reported body the as onus 1979 to (2) prove SCC M.P.receipt State ofElectricity basis knowledge of false of report.
the award. Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141;the allegation mentioned in
was The
noticed concept
that must
some Ihave
ofcase know back of the Roshangoes approached wages earlier Lal alongwith judgments claimant, me for had workman assistance reinstatement indicated whofora since that labour itspeak was court
27.
29.
32. possession workman The In However, prescribed the unemployment the meeting. complying as well. termination being present of management.
most probation with on Documents had the probation. shifted the letter surprising The also complaint.
dated period principles of to since Toworkman management the withhold is 26/03/01 wasadmittedly workman.
of the It
natural testimony
is
over, such Ex.
representative arecorrect justice the WW1/4 kind that absolutely workman
- of that of court reads evidence discharge all false Termination was the was as witness and under:-
did on order probation, not Sh.
fabricated. order making R.S. stating 80, UP the normal State Textile writingrule is Corporation present atokind grant in court.
ofVs. areinstatement draft P.C. He andwas Chaturvedi I just an with employee helped reported fullhimback asin of by (2005) wages 8,bySCC, was
40.
considered In after weighing view to be of all the participating complaints continuation the facts false and against andofcircumstances, the in fabricated service grievance the workman documents itself.
maythat committee.
However, award were filed/tendered the latest trend compensation in lieutheis Then once management.
writing again it in down J.K. but I SyntheticsI am was aware not Vs. concerned K.P. Agarwal he about was the s. reported as
36. the well Vashisth, thatThe acknowledged
34. order for entire allegations Since the theExecutive terminating the appellant the""failed credibility background onSecretary against Meru However, respect Screening basis Yuva his him,of himself the service ofinof of Kendra the was the March management. night facts Grievances he is previous passed.
who clearly duties no was Sangathan performance 26, 2001 isdoubt who not suggests except judgments. Surrounding shown stigmatic Vs. of haspresentone himself that toMehboob his beIt and duties in was present its failed inadministratively Iobserved circumstances present effect Alam case to stand in and the is said that Lasker; not the by also if
211).
(2) In Chowkidar.
meeting as such. I am I can not not awaresay name about of any such that even reinstatement of management reinstatement and Sh.
appropriate back is establishment was being wages.
Roshan performing replaced Lal, proceedings committee.
my duties areby separately theincompensation.
day times. being initiated In M/s against Lords 2007 after a LLR protracted 358, time misconducts person the and Hon'ble energy as I doalleged Chowkidar not evenSupreme consuming to remember have Court litigation been has what noticed during committed actually which the previous period the
31.one same the showing meeting and However, document. of Then could termination came that has technically"
Thereafter, not General leaving Statement discharge denied both have ofVol.
- Besides service It been having the wasHaryana aside is There above of wrong passed notsimplicitor CW1 the ever the is based reliefs Roadways no to technical is without attended affidavit suggest being rules solely ofonly but on any filed reinstatement Vs. holding for reproduced the aspects thatansuch Rudhan including order in High Hawaldar an and is assessment enquiry Singh hereunder absolutely meeting.
and of considering Court back of and The and wages (2005), for punitive giving appellant's the5 easy entire inhave the Homeopathic (2008) 2 SCC Laboratories must by the 479, it have was said Roshan Vs. held Ms. happened. that Lal Lissyathe Unnikunju in the Being eventreported senior of as 2006 unsatisfactory IV, workman judgments the management just andsustains has Indraprastha workman Chaman concluded himself, officials i.eLal that College representative and ultimately Sh. award V.K. for ofany Principal Women, Nayyar,is back point to didbe intold wages Section of College not time.
appear that isOfficer becomingIt (Admn.), though herare.
willDr. To be SCC, undergone 591. The administrative Hon'ble isbe Shamnath correct Courtthat officer, listed Marg, Ms. a Aruna it few was Surender factors my Sitesh duty on was Kumar which to help Principal Verma the or awardVs. of Centralback AD opportunity documents reference:-
and work (Delhi), proceedings Supreme andaCourt stigmatic. progressive to to 739, conduct the brought As alsoabsolutely theGoverning in workman such, during dilution.
witness Hon'ble by indicated the termination necessary to body.
probationbebox High management In background heard for
-There CourtofTermination inbetter service the arehis only ofis defence.
and reasons noof Delhi rendered the just rule the held has appellant Itdecision falsethat workman for iscited
- not only of Stigmatic and was around the without a case fabricated and20 quote reinstated, from he performance the will judgment:
by guide thebe denied employee, other Delhi. back officials. the wages termination It is which correct of would thatprobation there bewere due would toterminated him,been have the Aruna wages could Sitesh, of Principal/Chairman be based. college Someinof 2001.
grievance complaints committee against these (at factors&workman this Sh. in stage are: theareuniversity R.D. witness false andisAdministration Verma, Govt. Industrial judgments of the Tribunal, Supreme officials senior 1981 Court to (1) me SCR, andinDelhi 2001 789, High i.e itVicewas Court held that to The Principal, conclude there may that be in where and holding workman record. in "Coming punitive. no order any would It enquiry Held stands confronted enquiry to be
- arrive "(Sealed backthewas rules.
they quite into at wages subjected test held with the the know envelope and even governing well to original Consisting truth charges a noifthat of sort explained the of opportunity the of court of termination EX containing is six complaint absolutely matter, penalty then WW-
persons, finds was thatof it for 1/M6). management the violative given that two register necessary no-fault probation management fromto the ofthe was of is to provisions no workman his directed award and longer avoided back itresof to is to
-heldHeld - Order to1.beNature justified. on Principal, the Dear face Sh.
However, Versor of Roshan itwhen etc. wasLal,It stigmatic the is foundation obvious andthat punitive for there such was - Hon'ble an order High isshort not of employment (whether permanent or temporary or wages, exceptional Incharge suitable the cases a signatures question circumstances in accordancecontaining compensation the side workman will beat where with point pages of are whether the law.
should anA false.are 1management, beto back order 3only Itof iswages granted initials isopened wrong inthree reinstatement should lieu and atto from this of not suggest beandstage thethe awarded reinstatement. full backfully wages or wholly undeserved. term governing daily It wage was body stated basis of etc.) that trustees.any other I view can not would say be placing a only be produce I.D. heard, Act partially integra. examine as the itheld When any well isfull said (and also aand other as signatures Grievance side that principles aCW ifThis so, disciplinary officercase of proceedings 1 of the the where is of shown Ms. Committee of workman natural percentage).
enquiry the management Aruna management the of isyou and justice grievance That initiated Sitesh register). Proceedings thealso has as depends on usually Principal no-one Icommittee come the shownhave through premiseup uponcan and as put seen with be being theaTermination thatcondemned competent absolutely facts thereand present arein may Court an be was unsatisfactory impossible Although there whether to or be performance wrong is inequitable are therevarioustowas in inform on holding e.g.,the recent any part when it that judgments specific ofas the non-stigmatic the legal your employee industryof case the advisor might for Hon'ble of -but have overt closed Supreme acts
2. Method while of selection and employment. premium Fileon circumstances bean ofunwarranted cosigned the tomarking theconfirmation one have minutes each Secretary not ofbeen litigative case, record the Grievance any room. wasincome post.
filed who activity placed intentionally Committee preside ofbefore receivedthe (Ld. over employer.
by theAR Meetings as the theOffice for employee during
3. Length the management ofon management service. is or directed not. to It has place been the very long the down Courtfalse officer unheard serious the order and relevant or and granting meeting, and manipulated management allegations couldmight which period not be small even pasted have meeting.
workman has of in though documents.
inwhat was account misconduct amountsevere Establishment been the Itof they passed was also hasisof register correct happened financialnot directed on compensation were Committee without atpresented alternative the that page part to doldrums admittedlyon inof holding representative 2produce the there employment and ranging 26/03/2001. Ioriginal present state the and delinquent or still a where regularfrom in that the on service case.
theof or enquiry Termination officer the Rs.service rules business 10,000/- and concerned sinceofofisthe the his the a to However, amounting 4. Time to in time.
elapsedthe misconduct, same There after judgment, an may his opportunity have termination. deviation been. of It from hearing is wrong this to to rule the was employee also relevant Announced factor in the record to be itopen in isproceedings the taken thenote workman certainly court course were ofnotare ofcontaining while the included biased. day).inItImy awarding am the notwages, is signatures back grievance wrong aware to in addition to employeenone 25,000/-, would of have these suggest secured judgments that for an the employment lay down reason any that else formula there where.
were or By the very guidelines other to arrivetone
30. employees, of recognized Today the service During explanation management and on 01/10/2008 several ofcourse factorsabout all the it therewas and anythis The contents workman ofcommittee suggest final vide observed mentioned upon where even has committee of arguments, is order that held that thereof. otherwise in been EXRudhan MW-
dated workman order to it be rejected, decided I was could 1/M6.
transpired illegal 08/05/08. to Singh nottoprove have Vol.
services as pursuant that well (supra). terminate present been Being effective While Grievance as were thereto in at unjustified.
the Therefore, your any summoned a Committee terms full by Issue itand scale theis order concerned was isstigmatic imperative.
senior - Departmental officers In to otherme,(SUJATA thereenquiry words, was no was ifKOHLI) the employee need necessary.
for meistofound While to have the necessary and at observation committed formal proceedings conditions management no. tenor the It 2 said "In the iswas foramount. enquiry of decided very the the held of nature employee such misconduct ofwhich senior guide to judgment, Hon'ble service has against prove thatservices, of meeting representation terminated was been postin other the High However,theitthings, to stated and case although plead ,initiated, these wasgiving alleged management Court there officials. conduct Iof illegally". the to implied kind in be that J.U. you am workman cannot culminating proceedings. an in thethe ofthathe Additional Akhtar abasis rules that order was absolutely month's documents and workman. case Vol.
thein hasbe of notarendered District Iastraight Vs. terminating favour onus in was gainfully notice termination AsUniversity neverunaware Management & finding regards that to Iwas ofdo provethe jaclet Sessions w.e.f.
went not employed aprobation the of the impugned workman. order long the formula Judge Non-Academic guilt;
proceedings exceptional had period that from ofwould neverfor M/s order theof the date of relief awarding his termination----.
through ofabout 26.3.2001 administrativeremember back methis atso wages. in called any head. view as stage.
AlltoItofrelevant is your Presiding whenIt isunsatisfactory wrong meeting. Officer wrong to the suggest considerations The date to Labour suggest resolution work theCourt-II, that Iwill enter the service circumstances Markfed and Agro the time would reported elapsed be on as after the 2006 his employer. VIII termination AD However, (Delhi) was 33, smaller in the Kendriya Hon'ble in comparison, Vidyalya Delhi was appear order been Employees before verdict. What not produced ofthe to More ISSUE No. 1(Relief) termination stigmatic emerges Establishment be werethat am orinnocuous byless and deposing I the grievance from uponam of it dereliction tendered by the management at this stage is may produced management service would the deposing this, itself, Committee on falsely pleadings committee beHon'ble the would the a of next on falsely. on same motionit be duty, ground never its Supreme and date,held would own was the Vol.
only saw addressed despite Karkardooma of stigmatic. nor over constituted. Court be light Isympathy. a they am photocopyrepeated vitiated all toof Courts, observed a were evidence theday.
There very I ifcalled I of in discretion that minutes led effect itofHigh upon also by was and the by be of the On 'What is alternative warnings, employment?, as of recorded infather while your it was the view earlier that full Tribunal. Sanghtan Court backhas wages Full heldback Vs. responsible am S.C.could that not being remember wages Sharma, in be awarded.
supporting taken such person would 2005 on record cases, beanytwo LLR and theHowever, normal one. member 275,being and compensation Iruleamifpersonal while of andonly the ofEX Delhi.
senior the file. denying grievance workman CW1/X1.
emphasising cannot party IPS has beobjectingthatbeen less thatto than inthe ita
35. must only
37. workman surprising substance cases the Grievance The workman where aestablish regular entire itas as Committee is the and REINSTATEMENT/BACKWAGES or the well found documents hisorder allegations committee asA/R Icircumstances substantial Officer. the false have tothewere be Iand ex-facie document seen am stigmatic i.e management produced Ex.
no
gainful
the not
involved named was doubt WW1/M2, necessitating of in aware stigmatic as but nature.
employment statement the Ld. moral itself Amar notARthe management.
shown as Ex.
the Nath was to Itturpitude isand for MW1/1, that original. workman also departure". would to whether further Sharma, bethe bepunitive.
on Ex.
management Matter held the also considered dated MW1/2part that could was Sinceeven toofagain & have had the deny 3, if short back reliefwages term of back heemployment wouldWith wages isotherwise at theor discretion regards, was be appointed entitled of to.
the without
court, it wasfollowingheld that the it proper
was for
claimant Mohand
At this service Chand.
stage was
1this These
terminated register two orperson is directed about I to (s) the be back wages The principle to the20.4.01 was Sd/-emphatically workman, at page it has of this restated been heldregister Gujarat in now, and in North Steel state Tubes Est Karnatka Ltd. Vs. procedure theEx.
terminated order the delinquent very adjournedWW1/M4, claimant/workman employeewell was etc., The rule ofthatfounded called for the official. to award production services Ex.
reasons sealed show uponwere civilon MW1/4, of The back that the samefull the of lawcame language representatives ground the back of management therefor.
he in Ex.
an
was
also original workman to wages WW1/M5, know that used envelope. that not not appellant minutes could in because at of to Grievance gainfully containing a contract the the aproduce Ex.not later order workman. of WW1/M6, had of employed of my be the stage his proper.
failed oftheGrievance alleged Committee personal termination same the after signatures The in Ex. the real misconduct.
his MW1/5and service cannot performance Committee. object of there termination.service to was and Ex.
be
38. Keeping in view Yours sincerely, the facts was and circumstances of this case, workman is Gujarat SteelState Tubes workman Mazdoor XXXXxx Sabha by not(AIR heard 1980, before SC 1896), the Road The InTrasporation initial U.P. onus Meeting has any Vs. Brassware may where.
therefore, M. have now I Ld. Nagangauda, amtaken Corporation shifted ARnot for place, to aware the workman.
2007Vs. I Udai can workman. of LLR not anyNarain 340 say, such inIthatthe even Pandey, following self 2006 specifically
26.MW1/12. of his purport may gross Management The ex-facie duties for enforced, negligence offer and which administratively be then most ofstigmatic. does inappointment on Grievance the handling ofthe Nil. not termination the next Opportunitylimit documents The this and Committee date the language letter aspect. jurisdiction technically. order produced Ex.
of used given". the was But only WW1/2,management since the issued, thereunder Referenceof the representative original documents clause labour he could was may register clearly 5,then courts.
also in provides challenge question reflect containing had show It was tothat the i.e was not statement. present The nor aware.
said statement Management is being may EX words:
employment awarded which of reinstatement would thewith fetch any earning continuity workman were ofthat toheard.
service the and employee, The with 50% includingback LLR alwaysIt 214, came the understood Hon'ble to be have (Dr. that Supreme reiterated written Aruna when timeCourt Sitesh) namesan and orderof considered again any of retrenchment members, various grant what of previous reinstatement hascan been judgments declared and CW1/Y1. I was Sr. Administrative Officer at workman same there proceedings minutes it casewas agricultural was thereafter. oftrying "Traveling of shall something Deepati pursuitsmeeting happened to be level over The onproceedings Prakash would serious over probation and the Principal" foundation tosame bebe and showing charges directly above Premjeetfor ofofthe ground included one theof the the inrelevant byGrievance year misconduct Vs.attendance order assertion going 'gainful andto having Satender that the that Committee through against employment'.ofifentire been the his theevery Nath work officer the members disclosed controversy Bossworkman iswas not precedent by of Nationalfound and theis rendered back 'illegal', wages the by was same it I a say andthe ismatter when relevant concluded supposed of I wastime discretion to not that be i.evoidthere inthere of the the in year ab-initio wasthe labour meeting.2001
no and court and binding hence, andnow It is thatI precedent inoperative;the order that of the wages.
supererogatory and are
we still
hold lying
the that in theisoffice rule simple of the thatcollege. the discretion It to deny Thus, from wrong amthe retired.
to suggest position of I reinstatementam deposing and falsely.
back wages I being the
33. satisfactory, appellant unsuitable since meeting. instead
28.Centre the result In reinstatement theyof is contrast SEE labour for that in The holding for were :court that probation or the and Basic the said to (1) case stated pare should job.
a is this, employeefullregister detailed Sciences; V.P. atcorrect can toAbove a document down back show later be Ahuja bewas the would enquiry the extended that stage mentioned wages AIR directed very Ex.
Vs. 1999 quantum application be proceeding the therein basis CW1/X State by should deemed original SC to ofoftests, one of of beand 983, more termination retained which back mind to always Punjab;
behowever, order of giving wages wherein on grievance year.
was isthis the continuingbean on (2000) If are held opportunity order, record during alleged is thegrantednot absent point. 3 to entire in it SCCexhaustive be till that was minutes service vitiated further when save (Hindustan case toyear, 239 also the of-a for law and (At this have seen the statement on page alreadystage Ld. AR for management Sh.
39. exceptional automatic Reference reasons."
consequence is answered committee of a retrenchment has not Award accordingly. been found being filed.
is passed. I have illegal, Copy we of have thecome awarda termination therefore, the is grantRajeev EXCW1/Y1 held to of be the Dayal illegal. relief andseeksIt it of usedwas permission may reinstatementheld be so that to that a and cross it persons full mayexamine back is have not wages entitled alongwith to get Motors his in incumbent orders.
workman law.
thework Ltd. Vs. Tapan Kumar reported as (2002 6was SCC, 41; Indian the held with -said alleged This respecta istoprobationer case.
uponnot be court Grievance to this been heard, afound the Thedeposed then management language probationer witness.
in my
the
satisfactory, directedmanagement Committee like with temporary Allowed. hand had Sh.
but the to R.S. the regard in have Meeting been ) still impugned came services Vashisth, come servant do to reviewed held not up the up is know with can order allegations onSecretary with by also bethe 20/04/01 the in the terminated termination entitledfound proceedings to at Hon'ble what be examined to to 10.30 on be Supreme order certainone ex-
amon longbe way Thento sent to inaappropriate position Mohanlal against where Vs. the government award Bharat workman of for full Electronics, back on publication wages the 1981 basis within has (3)30 actually of SCC, days from become 215, the the something all benefits Railway Construction only of because continuous XXXXXXX it would service Co.this Vs. meeting be would Ajay lawful by Sh. Kumarbe to do automatic. Rajeev reportedso.
Dayal, It was asLd. also (2003) acknowledged AR 4 SCC, 579; connection was held. It is correct month's facie their as simply (3) shows rare. CW1. protection Court principle stigmatic.
ownoftried Sh.
and notice.
In and
-itR.S.Jaswant Histo Vashisth, was reinstatement since make services observed itSingh records/complaint.
itwith would look Secretary cannot thatfull case like have the be back -termination as been being terminated said wages Iis the itdecision have when one was best simplicitor of the arbitrarily fully again personal piece very members coveredor reiterated ofonservice punitive evidence the account present said after without although caseof in in it that ever In since Hindustan for that management KendriyaITin understand Works Vidalaya English Vs. Its very Sangthan employees well. (supra), Some reported body the as onus 1979 to (2) prove SCC M.P.receipt State ofElectricity knowledge of the award. Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141;the allegation mentioned in was The noticed concept that must some Ihave ofcase know back of the Roshangoes approached wages earlier Lal alongwith judgments claimant, me for had workman assistance reinstatement indicated whofora since that labour itspeak was court
27.
29.
32. possession workman The In However, prescribed the unemployment the meeting. complying as well. termination being present of management.
most probation with on Documents had the probation. shifted the letter surprising also complaint.
principles dated
period
of
to since
To
management the withhold is 26/03/01 wasadmittedly workman.
of the It
natural testimony
is
over, such Ex.
correct are justice the WW1/4 kind that absolutely workman
- of that of court reads evidence discharge all false Termination the was as witness and under:-
did on order probation, not Sh.
fabricated. order making R.S. stating 80, UP the normal State Textile writingrule is Corporation present atokind grant in court.
ofVs. areinstatement P.C.He draft andwas Chaturvedi I just an with employee helped reported fullhimback asin of by (2005) wages 8,bySCC, was
40.
considered In after weighing view to be of all the complaints continuation the facts false and against fabricated andofcircumstances, the service the workman documents itself.
maythat However, award were filed/tendered the latest trend compensation in lieutheis Then once management.
writing
again it
in downJ.K. but I I
Synthetics am was aware not Vs. concerned K.P. Agarwal he about was thes. reported as
36. the well Vashisth, thatThe acknowledged
34. order for entire allegations Since the theExecutive terminating the appellant the""failed credibility background onSecretary against Meru respect Screening basis Yuva his him,of himself the service ofinof of Kendra the was the March management. night facts Grievances is previous passed.
who no26, clearly duties Sangathan performance 2001 isdoubt whosuggests except judgments. Surrounding shown stigmatic Vs. of hashis one himself that toMehboob beIt and duties in was present its failed Iobserved circumstances present effect Alam case to stand in administratively and the is said that Lasker; not the by also if
211).
(2) In Chowkidar.
meeting as such. I am I can not not awaresay name about of any such that even reinstatement of management reinstatement and Sh.
appropriate wasis back being wages.
Roshan performing replaced Lal, proceedings my duties areby separately theincompensation.
day times. being initiated In M/s against Lords 2007 after a LLR protracted 358, time misconducts person the and Hon'ble energy as I doalleged Chowkidar not evenSupreme consuming to remember have Court litigation been has what noticed during committed actually which the previous period the
31.one same the showing meeting and However, document. of Then could termination came that has technically"
Thereafter, not General leaving Statement discharge denied both have of
- Besides service It been having the wasHaryana aside is above of wrong passed notsimplicitor CW1 the ever the based Roadways to technical is without attended affidavit reliefs suggest being solely ofonly but on any filed reinstatement Vs. holding reproduced the aspects thatanorder such Rudhan in High Hawaldar an and is assessment enquiry meeting. and Singh hereunder absolutely considering Court back of and The and wages (2005), for punitive giving appellant's the5 easy entire inhave the Homeopathic (2008) 2 SCC Laboratories must by the 479, it have said Roshanwas Vs. heldMs.
happened. that Lal Lissyathe Unnikunju in the Being eventreported senior of as 2006 unsatisfactory IV, workman judgments the management just andsustains has Indraprastha Chaman concluded himself, officials i.eLal that College Sh.and ultimatelyaward V.K. for ofany Principal Women, Nayyar,is back point to didbewages of time.
not told Section appear that isOfficer becomingIt (Admn.), though herare.
willDr. To be SCC, undergone 591. The administrative Hon'ble isbe Shamnath correct Court that officer, listed Marg, Ms. a Aruna it few was Surender factors Siteshmy duty on was Kumar which to help Principal Verma the or awardVs. of Centralback AD opportunity documents reference:-
and work (Delhi), proceedings Supreme andaCourt stigmatic. progressive to to 739, conduct the brought As alsoabsolutely theinduring workman such, dilution.
witness Hon'ble by indicated the termination necessary to probationbe box High managementIn background heard for
-ofTermination Court inbetter service the arehis only defence.
and reasons of rendered Delhi the of justthe held has appellant Itdecision falsethat workman iscited
- not only of Stigmatic and was around the without a case fabricated and20 quote reinstated, from he performance the will judgment:
by guide thebe denied employee, other Delhi. back officials. the wages termination It is which correct of would thatprobation there bewere due would toterminated him,been have the Aruna wages could Sitesh, of Principal/Chairman be based. college Someinof 2001.
complaints against these (at factors&workman this Sh.are:stage R.D. are witness false andisAdministration Verma, Govt. Industrial judgments of the Tribunal, Supreme officials senior 1981 Court to (1) SCR, andinDelhi me 2001 789, High i.e itVicewas Court held that to The Principal, conclude there may that be in where and holding workman record. in "Coming punitive. no order any would It enquiry Held stands confronted enquiry to be
- arrive "(Sealed backthewas they quite into at wages subjected test held with the the know envelope and even governing well to original truth charges a noifthat of sort explained the of opportunity the court of termination EX containing is complaint absolutely matter, penalty then WW-
finds was thatof it for 1/M6). management the violative given that register necessary no-fault probation management to the of the was of is to provisions no workman his directed award and longer avoided back itresof to is to
-heldHeld - Order to1.beNature justified. on Principal, the Dear face Sh.
However,Versor of Roshan it when etc. was Lal,It stigmatic the is foundation obvious andthat punitive for there such was - Hon'ble an order High isshort not of employment (whether permanent or temporary or wages, exceptional Incharge suitable the cases a signatures question circumstances in accordancecontaining compensation workman will be at where with pointareanA pages whether law.
should false. are 1order beto back 3only Itof iswages granted initials isopened wrong in should reinstatement lieu and atto this of not suggest beandstagethe awarded reinstatement.full backfully wages or wholly undeserved. term governing daily It wage was body stated basis of etc.) that trustees.any other I view can not would say be placing a only be produce I.D. heard, Act partially integra. examine as the itheld When any well isfull said (and also aand other as signatures Grievance that principles aCW ifThis so, disciplinary officercase proceedings 1 of the where is of shown Ms. Committee of natural percentage).
enquiry the management Aruna management the of isyou justice grievance That initiated Sitesh register). Proceedings also has as depends on usually no-one Icommittee come the shownhave through premiseup uponcan as put seen with be being theaTermination thatcondemned competent absolutely facts thereand present arein may Court an be was unsatisfactory impossible Although there whether to or be performance wrong is inequitable are there varioustowas in inform on holding e.g., recent any the part when it that judgments specific ofas the non-stigmatic the legal your employee industryof case the advisor might for Hon'ble of -but have overt closed Supreme acts
2. Method while of selection and employment. premium Fileon circumstances bean ofunwarranted cosigned the tomarking theconfirmation have minutes each recordnot ofbeen litigative case, the Grievance any room.wasincome post.
filed activity placed intentionally Committee ofbefore receivedthe (Ld. employer.
by theAR Meetings as the theOffice for employee during
3. Length the management ofon management service. is or directed not. to It has place been the very long the down Courtfalse officer unheard the order and relevant serious or and granting meeting, could and manipulated might management which period allegations not be small even pasted have workman has of in amount though documents.
inwhat account severe Establishment been was misconduct the of they passed was also has of register happened not on financial directed compensation were Committee without atpresented alternative the page part to doldrums admittedlyon inof holding 2produce the there employment and ranging 26/03/2001. Ioriginal present state the and delinquent or still a where regularfrom in that the on service case.
the or Termination officer the Rs.service enquiry rules business and concerned 10,000/-
sinceofofisthe the his the a to However, amounting 4. Time to in time.
elapsedthe misconduct, same There after judgment, an may his opportunity have termination. deviation been. of It from hearing is wrong this to to rule the was employee also relevant Announced factor in the record to be itopen in isproceedings taken thenote certainly court course were ofnot ofcontaining while the biased. day). ItImy awarding am back notwages, is signatures wrong aware to in addition to employeenone 25,000/-, would of have these suggest secured judgments that for an the employment lay down reason any that else formula there where.
were or By the very guidelines other to arrivetone
30. Today the employees, of recognized service During explanation management and on 01/10/2008 several ofcourse factorsabout all the it therewas and anythis The contents workman ofsuggest final vide observed mentioned upon where even has committee of arguments, is order that that thereof.
otherwise EXRudhan
held
in
been MW-
dated
workman
to it
be
rejected, decided I was could 1/M6.
transpired illegal 08/05/08.
Singh notto have Vol.
services as pursuant that well (supra). terminate present been Being While Grievance as were thereto in at unjustified.
the Therefore, your any summoned a Committee terms full by Issue itand scale theis order concerned was isstigmatic imperative.
senior - Departmental officers In to otherme,(SUJATA thereenquiry words, was no was ifKOHLI) the employee need necessary.
for meistofound While to have the necessary and at observation committed formal proceedings conditions management no. tenor the It 2 said "In the iswas foramount. enquiry of decided very the the held of nature employee such misconduct ofwhich senior guide tojudgment, Hon'ble service has against prove thatservices, terminated was been postin of meeting other the High However,the things, to stated and it case plead giving although ,initiated, these was alleged management Court there officials. conduct illegally". the to implied kind in be that Iworkman J.U. you am cannot culminating proceedings. an in the ofthathe Additional abasis rules that order was Akhtar absolutely month's documents and case Vol.
thein hasbe of notarendered District Iastraight Vs. terminating favour onus in was gainfully notice termination AsUniversity neverunaware Management & finding regards that towas ofprovethe jaclet Sessions w.e.f.
went employed aprobation the of the impugned workman. order long the formula Judge Non-Academic guilt;
proceedings exceptional had period that from ofwould neverfor M/s order theof the date of relief awarding his termination----.
through ofabout 26.3.2001 administrativeback methis atso wages. in called any head. view AllItofrelevant stage. is your PresidingIt isunsatisfactory wrong meeting. Officer wrong toThe suggest considerations to Labour suggest resolution work that Court-II, Iwill enter the service circumstances Markfed and Agro the time would reported elapsed be on as after the 2006 his employer. VIII termination AD However, (Delhi) was 33, smaller in the Kendriya Hon'ble in comparison, Vidyalya Delhi was appear order been Employees before verdict. What not produced ofthe to More ISSUE No. 1(Relief) termination stigmatic emerges Establishment be werethat am orinnocuous byless and produced deposing I the from uponam of it dereliction tendered by the management at this stage is may management service would the deposing this, itself, Committee on falsely pleadings beHon'ble the would the a next onof falsely. on same motionit be duty, ground never its Supreme and date, held would own the Vol.
only saw addressed despite Karkardooma of stigmatic. nor overCourt be light Isympathy. a they am photocopyrepeated vitiated all toof Courts, observed a were evidence theday.
There very ifcalled I of in discretion that minutes led effect itofHigh upon also by was and the by be of the On 'What is alternative warnings, employment?, as recorded infather while your it was the view earlier that full Tribunal. Sanghtan Court backhas wages Full heldback Vs. responsible am S.C.could that not being in be wages Sharma, awarded.
supporting taken such person would 2005 on record cases, beany LLR theand However, normal one. Irule 275,being and compensation amifpersonal while of andonly the EX Delhi.
senior the file. denying workman CW1/X1.
emphasising cannot party IPS has beobjectingthatbeen less thatto than inthe ita
35. must only
37. workman surprising substance cases the Grievance The workman where aestablish regular entire itas as Committee is the and REINSTATEMENT/BACKWAGES or the well thefound documents hisorder allegations asA/R Icircumstances substantial Officer. false have tothewere be Iand ex-facie document seen am stigmatic i.e management produced Ex.
no
gainful
the not
involved was doubt WW1/M2, necessitating of in aware stigmatic but nature.
employment statement the Ld. moral itself notARthe management.
shown as Ex.
the to Itturpitude isand forwasMW1/1, that original. workman also departure". would to whether further bethe bepunitive.
on Ex.
management Matter held the also considered dated MW1/2part that could was Sinceeven toofagain & have had the deny 3, if short back reliefwages term of back heemployment wouldWith wages isotherwise theor discretion at regards, was appointed be entitled of to. the court,without it was followingheld thatthe it was proper for claimant At this service stagewas 1this terminated register orand is directed about I to the be back wages The principle to the20.4.01 was Sd/-emphatically workman, at page it has of this restated been register held Gujarat in now, in North Steel state Tubes Est Karnatka Ltd. Vs. procedure theEx.
terminated order the delinquent very adjournedWW1/M4, claimant/workman employeewell was etc., The rule ofthatfounded called for the official. to award production services Ex.
reasons sealed show upon civilon MW1/4, of The back that the samefull the of lawcame language ground the back of management therefor.
he in Ex.
an
was
also original workman to that not wages WW1/M5, know that used envelope. not appellant minutes could in because at to Grievance gainfully containing a contract the a produce Ex.not later order of WW1/M6, had of employed of my be the stage personalhis proper.
failed oftheGrievance alleged Committeetermination same the after signatures in Ex. the real misconduct.
his MW1/5and service cannot performance Committee. object of there termination.service to was and Ex.
be Yours sincerely,
38. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, workman is Gujarat Road SteelState InTrasporation U.P. Tubes Meeting any Mazdoor XXXXxx Vs. Brassware may where. M. have bySabha I Ld. Nagangauda, amtaken Corporation AR (AIR not for place, 1980, awareworkman.
2007Vs. I Udai canSC of LLR 1896), not anyNarain 340 say, such inIthatthe even Pandey, following self 2006 The initial specifically
26.MW1/12. of his purport may gross Management The ex-facie onus enforced, negligence duties for offer and has which therefore, administratively be then most ofstigmatic. does inappointment on the handling ofthe not termination the next now limit documents The this and date shifted the language letter aspect.
technically. order produced Ex. to of usedthe was Butthe jurisdiction WW1/2, workman.
management since the issued, thereunder Referenceof originalthe documents clause labour he could was may register clearly 5,then courts.
also in provides challenge question reflect containing had show It was tothat the i.e was notNil.
statement. Opportunity present The nor said given".
aware. statement Management is being may EX words:
employment awarded which would with reinstatement fetchcontinuityany earning ofthat to the and service employee, with 50% includingback LLR alwaysIt 214, came the understood Hon'ble to havebe (Dr. that Supreme reiterated written Aruna when time Court Sitesh) names an and order of considered again any of retrenchment members, various grant what of previous reinstatement hascan been judgments declared and CW1/Y1. I was Sr. Administrative Officer at workman same there proceedings minutes it casewas agricultural was thereafter. oftrying "Traveling of shall something Deepati pursuitsmeeting happened to be level over The on Prakash would serious over probation and the Principal" foundation tosame bebe and showing charges directly above Premjeetforofone ground included theof the the inrelevant byyear misconduct attendance Vs.order assertion going 'gainful andto having Satender that the that through against employment'.ofifentire been the his theevery Nath work officer the members disclosed controversy Bossworkman iswas not precedent by of Nationalfound and theis rendered back 'illegal', wages the by was same it I asay andthe ismatter when relevant concluded supposed of I wastime discretion to not that be i.e voidthere inthere of the the inyear ab-initio wasthe labour meeting.2001
no and court and binding hence, andnow It isI precedent that inoperative;the order that of the wages.
supererogatory and we Thus, from wrong amthe tohold retired. suggest position the that of rule Iisam reinstatement simple deposing that falsely.
and the discretion back wages I being to deny the
33. satisfactory, appellant unsuitable since meeting.
instead In reinstatement
28.Centre the result theyof is contrast SEE labour for that in The holding for were :court that probation or the and Basic the said to (1) case stated pare should job.
a this, employeefullregister detailed Sciences; V.P. at can toAbove a document down back show later be Ahuja bewas the would enquiry the extended stage mentioned wages AIR directed very Ex.
Vs. 1999 quantum application be the therein basis CW1/X State by original should deemed SC to ofoftests, one of of beand 983, more termination retained which back mind to always Punjab;
behowever, order giving wages wherein on year.
was isthis the continuingbean on (2000) If are held opportunity order, record during alleged is thegrantednot absent point. 3 to entire in it SCCexhaustive be till that was minutes service vitiated further when save (Hindustan case toyear, 239 also the of-a for law and (At this stage have seen the statement on page already Ld. AR for management Sh.
39. exceptional automatic Reference reasons."
consequence is answered accordingly. Award of a retrenchment being to is passed.
found illegal, Copy we of have thecome awarda termination therefore, the is grantRajeev EXCW1/Y1 held to of be the Dayal illegal.
relief seeks
and It it
of usedwaspermission may held reinstatement be so that that a and cross it persons full mayexamine back is have not wages entitled alongwith to get Motors his in incumbent orders.
workman law.
thework Ltd. Vs. Tapan Kumar reported as up(2002 6was SCC, 41; Indian the held with -said alleged This respecta istoprobationer case.
uponnot be court Grievance to this been heard, afound the The then management language probationer witness.
in my
the
satisfactory, directedmanagement Committee like temporary Allowed. hand had Sh.
but
to R.S.
the
in
have
Meeting
been
)
still
impugned came services Vashisth, come servant reviewed do held not up is know with can order onSecretary with by also bethe 20/04/01 the in the terminated termination entitledfound proceedings to at Hon'ble what be examined to 10.30 to on be Supreme order certainone ex-
amon longbe way Thento sent to inaappropriate position where Mohanlal Vs. Bharat government award of for full Electronics, back wages publication 1981 within has (3)30 actually SCC,days from become 215, the the something all benefits Railway Construction only of because continuous XXXXXXX it would service Co.this Vs. meeting be would Ajay lawful by Sh. Kumarbe to do automatic. Rajeev reportedso.
Dayal, It was asLd. also (2003) acknowledged AR 4 SCC, 579; connection was held. It is correct month's facie their as simply (3) shows rare. CW1. protection Court principle stigmatic.
ownoftried Sh.
and notice.
In and
-itR.S.Jaswant Histo Vashisth, was reinstatement since make services observed itSingh itwith would look Secretary cannot thatfullcase like have the be back -termination as been being terminated said wages is the itdecision when one was best simplicitor of thepiece arbitrarily fully again very members coveredor reiterated ofonservice punitive evidence the account present said after without although caseof in in it that ever In since Hindustan for that management KendriyaITin understand Works Vidalaya English Vs. Its very Sangthan employees well. (supra), Some reported body the as onus 1979 to (2) prove SCC M.P.receipt State ofElectricity the award. Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141;
was The
noticed concept
that must
some Ihave
ofcase know back of the Roshangoes approached wages earlier Lal alongwith judgments claimant, me for had workman assistance reinstatement indicated whofora since that labour itspeak was court
27.
29.
32. possession workman The In However, prescribed the unemployment the meeting. complying as well. termination being present of management.
most probation with on Documents had probation.
shifted the letter surprising also principles dated period of to since To management the withhold is 26/03/01 wasadmittedly workman.
of the
natural testimony
over, such Ex.
are justice the WW1/4 kind that absolutely workman
- of of court reads evidence discharge false Termination was as witness and under:-
did on order probation, not Sh.
fabricated. order making R.S. stating 80, UP the normal State Textile writingrule is Corporation present atokind grant in court.
ofVs. areinstatement P.C.He draft andwas Chaturvedi I just an with employee helped reported fullhimback asby of(2005) wages 8,bySCC, was
40.
considered In after weighing view to be of all the continuation the facts false and fabricated andofcircumstances, the service documents itself.
maythat However, award filed/tendered the latest trend compensation in lieutheis Then once management.
writing
again it
in downJ.K. but I I
Synthetics am was notaware Vs. concerned K.P. Agarwal he about was the s. reported as
36. the well Vashisth, thatThe acknowledged
34. order for entire allegations Since the theExecutive terminating the appellant the""failed credibility background onSecretary against Meru Screening basis Yuva his him,of himself the service ofinof Kendrathe was the March management. facts Grievances is previous passed.
who no26, clearly Sangathan performance 2001 isdoubt whosuggests judgments. stigmatic Surrounding shown Vs. of hashis himself that toMehboob beIt was duties in present presentits failed effect observed circumstancesAlam case to stand in administratively and the is said that Lasker; not the by also if
211).
(2) In Chowkidar.
meeting as such. I am I can not not aware say name about of any such that even reinstatement of management reinstatement and Sh.
appropriate back is being wages.
Roshan replacedare Lal, proceedings by separately the compensation. being initiated In M/s against Lords 2007 after a LLR protracted 358, time misconducts person the and Hon'ble energy as I doalleged Chowkidar not evenSupreme consuming to remember have Court litigation been has what noticed during committed actually which the previous period the
31.one same the showing meeting and However, document. of Then could termination came that has technically"
Thereafter, not General leaving Statement discharge denied both have of
- Besides service been having the wasHaryana aside above of passed not simplicitor CW1 the ever the based Roadways technical is without attended affidavit reliefs being solely ofonly but filedon any reinstatement Vs. holding reproduced the aspectsanorder such Rudhan in High an and is assessment enquiry meeting. and Singh hereunder absolutely considering Court back of and The and wages (2005), for punitive giving appellant's the5 easy entire inhave the Homeopathic (2008) 2 SCC Laboratories must by the 479, it have said Roshanwas Vs. held Ms. happened. that Lal LissyatNayyar, Unnikunju in the Being eventreported senior of as 2006 unsatisfactory IV, workman judgments the management just andsustains has Indraprastha concluded himself, officials i.ethat College ultimately Sh.award V.K. he for ofany Women, is back point to bewages of time.
told Section that isOfficer becomingIt (Admn.), though herare.
willDr. To be SCC, undergone 591. The administrative Hon'ble isbe Shamnath correct Court that officer, listed Marg, Ms. a Aruna it few was Surender factors my Sitesh duty on was Kumar which to help Principal Verma the or awardVs. of Centralback AD opportunity documents reference:-
and work (Delhi), proceedings Supreme andaCourt stigmatic. progressive to to 739, conduct the brought As alsoabsolutely theworkman such, during dilution.
Hon'ble by indicated the termination necessary to probation beIn High management background heard for
-ofTermination Court inbetter service his are only defence.
and of rendered Delhi the of justthe held has appellant Itdecision false workman iscited
- not only of Stigmatic and was around the without a case fabricated and20 quote reinstated, from he performance the will judgment:
by guide thebe denied employee, other Delhi. back officials. the wages termination It is which correct of would thatprobation there bewere due would toterminated him,been have the Aruna wages could Sitesh, of Principal/Chairman be based. college Someinof 2001. these factors (at & this Sh.are:stage R.D. witness Verma, isAdministration Govt. Industrial judgments of the Tribunal, Supreme officials senior 1981 Court to (1) SCR, andinDelhi me 2001 789, High i.e itVicewas Court held that to The Principal, conclude there may that be in where and holding workman record. in "Coming punitive. no order any would It enquiry Held stands confronted enquiry to -arrive "(Sealed back be thewas quite into at wages subjected test held with the the envelope and even to governing well original truth charges a noifof sort explained the of opportunity the court of termination EX containing is absolutely matter, penalty then WW-
finds was thatof it for 1/M6). management the violative given register necessary no-fault probation management to of the was of is to provisions no workman directed award his and longer avoided back itresof to is to
-heldHeld - Order to1.beNature justified. on Principal, the Dear face Sh.
However,Versor of Roshan it when etc. was Lal, It stigmatic the is foundation obvious andthat punitive for there such was - Hon'ble an order High isshort not of employment (whether permanent or temporary or wages, exceptional Incharge suitable the cases a signatures question circumstances in accordancecontaining compensation will be at where with point pages whether law.
should anA1order are beto back 3onlyiswages of granted initials opened in should reinstatement lieu atand this of not beandstagethe awarded reinstatement.full backfully wages or wholly undeserved. term governing daily It wage was body stated basis of etc.) that trustees.any other I view can not would say be placing a only be produce I.D. heard, Act partially integra. examine as the itheld When any well isfull said (and also aand other as signatures Grievance principles aCW ifThis so, disciplinary officercase 1 of the where is of shown Ms. Committee of natural percentage). enquiry the management Aruna management the isyou justice That initiated Sitesh register). Proceedings also has as depends on Iusually no-one come the shownhave through premiseup uponcan as put seen with be being theaTermination thatcondemned competent absolutely facts thereand present arein may Court an be was unsatisfactory impossible Although there whether to or be performance wrong is inequitable are there varioustowas in inform on holding the e.g., recent any part when it that judgments specific ofas the non-stigmatic the legal your employee industryof case the advisor might for Hon'ble of -but have overt closed Supreme acts
2. Method while of selection and employment.
premium Fileon circumstances bean ofunwarranted cosigned the tomarking theconfirmation minutes each recordcase, ofroom.
litigative the Grievance anywasincome post.
activity placed Committee ofbefore the received (Ld. employer.
by theAR Meetings theOffice for employee during
3. Length the management ofon management service. is or directed not. It has been very long the down Courtfalse officer unheard the order and relevant serious or and granting meeting, could and manipulated might management which period allegations not be small even pasted have has of in amount though documents.
inwhat account severe Establishment been was misconduct the of they passed also has of register happened financialdirected compensation were Committee without atto alternative on the page place part to doldrums admittedlyoninof holding thepresent 2produce the employment and ranging 26/03/2001. Ioriginal state the delinquent or still a where regularfrom in that the on service case.
or Termination officer the Rs.service enquiry rules business and concerned 10,000/-
sinceofofisthe the his the a to However, amounting 4. Time to in time.
elapsedthe misconduct, same There after judgment, an may his opportunity have termination. deviation been. of It from hearing is wrong this to to rule the was employee also relevant Announced factor in the record to be itopenistakenin thenote certainly court course ofnot ofcontaining while theawarding day). Imy am back notwages, signatures awarein addition to employeenone 25,000/-, would have ofsuggest thesecontents secured judgments that forof anthe employment lay down that reason any else formula there where.
were By the very or guidelines other to arrivetone
30. Today the employees, of recognized service During and on 01/10/2008 several explanation management ofcourse factorsabout all the it therewas and anythis workman of The final vide observed mentioned upon where even arguments, has committeeis orderheld that thereof.
otherwise EX
in
been MW-
dated
to
Rudhan it
be
rejected, decided I was could 1/M6.
transpired illegal 08/05/08.
Singh notto have as Vol.
pursuant that well (supra). terminate present been Being While Grievance as thereto in at unjustified.
the Therefore, your any summoned a Committee terms full by Issue itand scale theis order concerned was isstigmatic imperative.
senior - Departmental officers In to other thereenquiry words, me,(SUJATA was no was ifKOHLI) the employee need necessary.
for meistofound While to have the necessary and at observation committed formal proceedings conditions management no. tenor the It 2 said "In the iswas foramount. enquiry of decided very the the held of nature employee such misconduct ofwhich senior guide tojudgment, Hon'ble service has services, against prove that was been postin of meeting other the High However,the things, to stated and it case plead giving although ,initiated, these was alleged management Court there officials. conduct the to implied kind in be that Iworkman J.U. you am cannot culminating proceedings. an in the ofthathe Additional abasis rules that order was Akhtar absolutely month's documents and case Vol.
thein hasbe of notarendered District Iastraight Vs. terminating favour onus in was gainfully notice termination AsUniversity neverunaware Management & finding regards that towas ofprovethe jaclet Sessions w.e.f.
went employed aprobation the of the impugned workman. order long the formula Judge Non-Academic guilt;
proceedings exceptional had period that from ofwould neverfor M/s order theof the date of relief awarding his termination----.
through ofabout 26.3.2001 administrativeback methis atso wages. in called any head. view AllItofrelevant stage. is your PresidingIt isunsatisfactory wrong meeting. Officer wrong toThe suggest considerations to Labour suggest resolution work that Court-II, Iwill enter the service circumstances Markfed and Agro the time would reported elapsed be on as after the 2006 his employer. VIII termination AD However, (Delhi) was 33, smaller in the Kendriya Hon'ble in comparison, Vidyalya Delhi was appear order been Employees before verdict. not produced ofthe to More ISSUE No. 1(Relief) termination stigmatic Establishment be werethat am orinnocuous byless and it dereliction tendered by the management at this stage is may produced deposing I the uponam of management service would deposing this, itself, Committee on falsely beHon'ble the would the a next onof falsely. on same motionit be itsduty, ground never Supreme date, held would own Vol.
only saw addressed despite Karkardooma of stigmatic. nor Court be light Isympathy. a they am photocopyrepeated vitiated toof Courts, observed a were theday.
There very ifcalled I of in discretion that minutes effect itofHigh upon also was and by be of the On 'What is alternative warnings, employment?, as recorded infather while your it was the view earlier that full Tribunal. Sanghtan Court backhas wages Full heldback Vs. responsible am S.C.could that not being in be wages Sharma, awarded.
supporting taken such person would 2005 on record cases, beany LLR theand However, normal one. Irule 275,being and compensation amifpersonal while of andonly the EX Delhi.
senior the file. denying workman CW1/X1.
emphasising cannot party IPS has beobjectingthatbeen less thatto than inthe ita
35. must only
37. surprising substance cases the Grievance The workman where aestablish regular entire itas Committee is the and REINSTATEMENT/BACKWAGES or the found documents hisorder allegations A/R Icircumstances substantial Officer. the false have towere be Iand ex-facie document seen am stigmatic i.e produced Ex.
no
gainful
the not
involved was doubt WW1/M2, necessitating of in aware stigmatic but nature.
employment statement the Ld. moralnotARthe management.
shown as Ex.
the to Itturpitude and forwasMW1/1, original. workman also departure". would to whether further bebepunitive.
on Ex.
Matter held the also considered dated MW1/2part that could was Sinceeven toofagain & have the deny 3, if short back reliefwages term of back heemployment wouldWith wages isotherwise theor discretion at regards, was appointed be entitled of to. the court,without it was followingheld thatthe it was proper for claimant At this service stagewas 1this terminated register orand is directed about I to the be back wages The principle to the20.4.01 was Sd/-emphatically workman, at page it has of this restated been register held Gujarat in now, in North Steel state Tubes Est Karnatka Ltd. Vs. procedure theEx.
order the delinquent very adjournedWW1/M4, claimant/workman employeewell was etc., The rule ofthatfounded called for official. to award production Ex.
reasons sealed show uponon civilMW1/4, of The back that the samefull the lawcame language ground back of management therefor. he in Ex.
an was also original to wages WW1/M5, know that used envelope. that not not appellant minutes could inat to Grievance gainfully containing a contract the a produce Ex.not later order of WW1/M6, had employed of my be the stage personalproper.
failed oftheGrievance Committeetermination same the after signatures in Ex. the real his MW1/5 and service cannot performance Committee. object of there termination.service to was and Ex.
be Yours sincerely,
38. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, workman is Gujarat Road SteelState InTrasporation U.P. Tubes Meeting any Mazdoor XXXXxx Vs. Brassware may where. M. have Sabha byI Ld. Nagangauda, amtaken Corporation AR (AIR not for place, 1980, awareworkman.
2007Vs. I Udai canSC of LLR 1896), not anyNarain 340 say, such inIthatthe even Pandey, following self 2006 The initial specifically of hisex-facie purport may gross Management MW1/12. onus enforced, negligence duties forand has which therefore, administratively be then most does stigmatic. innot on the handling ofthe not termination the next now limit documents The this and date shifted the language aspect.
technically. order produced to of usedthe wasthe jurisdiction workman.
ButManagement management since the issued, thereunder Referenceof originalthe documents labour he could was may register clearly thencourts.
also inchallenge question reflect containing had show It was tothat the i.e was Nil.
statement. Opportunity present The nor said given".
aware. statement is being may EX words:
employment awarded which would with reinstatement fetchcontinuity any earning ofthat to the and service employee, with 50% includingback LLR alwaysIt 214, came the understood Hon'ble to havebe (Dr. that Supreme reiterated written Aruna when timeCourt Sitesh) namesan and order of considered again any of retrenchment members, various grant what of previous reinstatement hascan been judgments declared and CW1/Y1. I was Sr. Administrative Officer at same there proceedings minutes it casewas agricultural was thereafter. oftrying "Traveling ofsomething Deepati pursuitsmeeting happened to over level The Prakash would serious over and the Principal" foundation tosame bebe and showing charges directly above Premjeet ground included ofthe of the the inrelevant bymisconduct attendance Vs.order assertion going 'gainful to having Satender the that through against employment'.ofentire been the theevery Nath officer the members disclosed controversy Bossworkman was precedent by of Nationalfound and theis rendered back 'illegal', wages the by was same it I asay andthe ismatter when relevant concluded supposed of I was time discretion to not that be i.e voidthere inthere of the the inyear ab-initio wasthe labour meeting.2001
no and court and binding hence, andnow It isI precedent that inoperative;the order that of the wages.
supererogatory and we Thus, from wrong amthe tohold retired. suggest position the that of rule Iisam reinstatement simple deposing that falsely.
and the discretion back wages I being to deny the
33. appellant unsuitable since meeting.
instead In reinstatement
28.Centre the result SEE labour theyof is contrast for that in The holding for were :court that the and Basic or the said to (1) case stated pare should employee job.
a this, fullregister detailed Sciences; V.P. at down toAbove a document back show later be Ahuja was the would enquiry thestage mentioned wages AIR directed very Ex.
Vs. 1999 quantum application be the therein State basis CW1/X original should deemed SC to ofoftests, of of beand 983, back mind to termination retained which always Punjab;
behowever, order giving wages wherein on was isthis the continuingbean on (2000) are held opportunity order, record alleged is thegrantednot absent point. 3 to entire in it SCCexhaustive be tillwas minutes service vitiated further when save (Hindustan case toalso 239 the of-a for law and (At this stage have seen the statement on page already Ld. AR for management Sh.
39. exceptional automatic Reference reasons."
consequence is answered accordingly. Award of a retrenchment being to is passed.
found illegal, Copy we of have thecome awarda termination therefore, the is grantRajeev EXCW1/Y1 held to of be the Dayal illegal.
relief seeks
and It it
of usedwaspermission may held reinstatement be so that that a and cross it persons full mayexamine back is have not wages entitled alongwith to get Motors in incumbent orders.
workman law.
the Ltd. Vs. Tapan Kumar reported as up(2002 6was SCC, 41; Indian the held with -said alleged This respecta toprobationer case.
uponbe court Grievance to this been heard, athe Thethen management language probationer witness.
in my
the
directedmanagement Committee like temporary Allowed. hand had Sh.
but
to R.S.
in
have
Meeting
been
)
still
impugned came Vashisth, come servant reviewed do held not up is know with order onSecretary with by also the 20/04/01 the in the termination entitledfound proceedings to at Hon'ble what be examined to 10.30 to be Supreme order certain ex-
amon longbe way Thento sent to inaappropriate position where Mohanlal Vs. Bharat government award of for full Electronics, back wages publication 1981 within has (3)30 actually SCC,days from become 215, the the something all benefits Railway Construction only of because continuous XXXXXXX it would service Co.this Vs. meeting be would Ajay lawful by Sh. Kumarbe to do automatic. Rajeev reportedso.
Dayal, It was asLd. also (2003) acknowledged AR 4 SCC, 579; connection was held. It is correct facie their as simply (3) shows rare. CW1. protection Court principle stigmatic.
ownoftried Sh.
and In and
-itR.S.Jaswant Histo Vashisth, was reinstatement since make services observed itSingh itwith would look Secretary cannot that full case like have the be back -termination as been being terminated said wages is the itdecision when one was best simplicitor of thepiece arbitrarily fully again very members coveredor reiterated of onservice punitive evidence the account present said after without although caseof in in it that ever In since Hindustan for that management KendriyaITin understand Works Vidalaya English Vs. Its very Sangthan employees well. (supra), Some reported body the as onus 1979 to (2) prove SCC M.P.receipt State ofElectricity the award. Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141;
was The
noticed concept
that must
some Ihave
ofcase know back of the Roshangoes approached wages earlier Lal alongwith judgments claimant, me for had workman assistance reinstatement indicated whofora since that labour itspeak was court
29.
32. possession workman In However, prescribed the unemployment the meeting. complying as well. being present of management.
most probation with on Documents had probation.
shifted the surprising also principlesperiod of to since To withhold is management the was admittedly workman.
of the
natural testimony
over, such are justice the kind that absolutely workman
- of of court evidence discharge false Termination was witness and did on order probation, not Sh.
fabricated. order making R.S. stating 80, UP the normal State Textile writingrule is Corporation present atokind grant in court.
ofVs. areinstatement P.C.He draft andwas Chaturvedi I just an with employee helped reported fullhimback asby of (2005) wages 8,bySCC, was
40. considered In after weighing view to be of all the continuation the facts false and fabricated andofcircumstances, the service documents itself.
maythat However, award filed/tendered the latest trend compensation in lieutheis Then once management.
writing
again it
in downJ.K. but I I
Synthetics am was notaware Vs. concerned K.P. Agarwal he about was the s. reported as
36.
34. the well Vashisth, thatThe acknowledged order for entire allegations Since the theExecutive terminating the appellant credibility background onSecretary against Meru the"failed Screening basis Yuva his him,of himself the service ofinof Kendra management.
the wasthefacts Grievances is previous passed.
who clearly no isdoubt Sangathan performance whosuggests judgments. stigmatic Surrounding shown Vs. of hashis himself that toMehboob beIt was duties in present presentits failed effect observed circumstances Alam case to stand in administratively and the is said that Lasker; not the by also if
211).
(2) In Chowkidar.
meeting as such. I am I can not not aware say name about of any such that even reinstatement of management reinstatement and back appropriate is wages.
being replacedare proceedings by separately the compensation. being initiated In M/s against Lords 2007 after a LLR protracted 358, time misconducts person the and Hon'ble energy as I doalleged Supreme consuming not even to remember have Court litigation been has what noticed during committed actually which the previous period the
31.one same the showing meeting and However, document. of Then could termination came that has technically"
Thereafter, not General leaving Statement discharge denied both have of
- Besides service been having the wasHaryana aside above of passed notsimplicitor CW1 the ever the based Roadways technical is without attended affidavit reliefs being solely ofonly but filedon any reinstatement Vs. holding reproduced the aspectsanorder such Rudhan in High an and is assessment enquiry meeting. and Singh hereunder absolutely considering Court back of and The and wages (2005), for punitive giving appellant's the5 easy entire inhave the Homeopathic (2008) 2 SCC Laboratories must by the 479, it have said Roshanwas Vs. heldMs.
happened. that Lal LissyatNayyar, Unnikunju in the Being eventreported senior of as 2006 unsatisfactory IV, workman judgments the management just andsustains has concluded himself, officials i.ethat ultimately Sh.award V.K. he ofany is back point to bewages of time.
told Section that isOfficer becomingIt (Admn.), though herare.
willDr. To be SCC, undergone 591. The administrative Hon'ble isbe correct Court that officer, listed Ms. a Aruna it few was Surender factors my Sitesh duty on was Kumar which to help Principal Verma the or awardVs. of Centralback AD opportunity documents reference:-
and work (Delhi), proceedings Supreme andaCourt stigmatic. progressive to to 739, conduct the brought As alsoabsolutely theworkman such, during dilution.
Hon'ble by indicated the termination necessary to probationbeIn High management backgroundheard for
-ofTermination Court inbetter service his are only defence.
and of rendered Delhi the of justthe held has appellant Itdecision false workman iscited
- not only of Stigmatic and was around the without a case fabricated and20 quote reinstated, from he performance the will judgment:
by guide thebeother denied employee, back officials. the wages termination It is which correct of would thatprobation there bewere due would toterminated him,been have the Aruna wages could Sitesh, of Principal/Chairman be based. college Someinof 2001. these factors (at & this Sh.are:stage R.D. witness Verma, isAdministration Govt. Industrial judgments of the Tribunal, Supreme officials senior 1981 Court to (1) SCR, andinDelhi me 2001 789, High i.e itVicewas Court held that to The Principal, conclude there may that be in where and holding workman record. in "Coming punitive. no order any would It enquiry Held stands confronted enquiry to -arrive "(Sealed back be thewas quite into at wages subjected test held with the the and even to governing well original envelope truth charges a noifof sort explained the of opportunity the court of termination EX containing is absolutely matter, penalty then WW-
finds was thatof it for 1/M6). management the violative given register necessary no-fault probation management to of the was isofto provisions no workman directed award his and longer avoided back itresof to is to
-heldHeld - Order to1.beNature justified. on Principal, the face However,Versor of it when etc. was It stigmatic the is foundation obvious andthat punitive for there such was - Hon'ble an order High isshort not of employment (whether permanent or temporary or wages, exceptional Incharge suitable the cases a signatures question circumstances in accordancecontaining compensation will be at where with point pages whether law.
should anA1order are beto back 3onlyiswages of granted initials opened in should reinstatement lieu atand this of not beandstagethe awarded reinstatement.full backfully wages or wholly undeserved. term governing daily It wage was body stated basis of etc.) that trustees.any other I view can not would say be placing a only be produce I.D. heard, Act partially integra. examine as the itheld When any well isfull said (and also aand other as signatures ifGrievance principles aCW so, disciplinary officer case 1 of the whereof enquiry the Ms. ispercentage).
shown Committee of natural management Aruna management the justice That is initiated Sitesh register). Proceedings also has as depends Iusually onno-one come the shownhave through premiseup uponcan as put seen with be being theaTermination thatcondemned competent absolutely facts thereand present arein may Court an be was unsatisfactory impossible Although there whether to be performance or are wrong inequitable there various was inon holding the e.g., recent any part when it of judgments specific as the non-stigmatic the legal employee industryof the advisor might Hon'ble of -but have overt closed Supreme acts
2. Method while of selection and employment.
premium Fileon circumstances bean of the each unwarranted cosigned the tomarking minutes record ofroom.
litigative case, the income Grievance any post. Committee activity of the received (Ld. employer. AR byMeetings for the employee during
3. Length the management ofon management service. is or directed not. It has been very long the down Courtfalse officer unheard the order and relevant serious or and granting meeting, could and manipulated might management period allegations which not be small even pasted have of inhas amount though documents.
inwhat account severe been was misconduct the of they passedalso has of register happened financialdirected compensation were without atto alternative on the page place part toinof doldrums admittedly holding thepresent 2produce the employment and ranging Ioriginal state the delinquent or still a where regularfrom in that the on service case.
or Termination officer the Rs.service enquiry rules business 10,000/- and concerned sinceofofisthe the his the a to However, amounting 4. Time to in time.
elapsedthe misconduct, same There after judgment, an may his opportunity have termination. deviation been. of It from hearing is wrong this to to rule the was employee also relevant Announced factor in the record to be itopenistakenin thenote certainly court course ofnot ofcontaining while theawarding day). Imy am back notwages, signatures awarein addition to employeenone 25,000/-, would have ofsuggest thesecontents secured judgments that forof an the employment lay down that reason any else formula there where.
were By the very or guidelines other to arrivetone
30. Today the employees, of recognized service During and on 01/10/2008 several explanation management ofcourse factorsabout all the it therewas and anythis workman of final vide observed mentioned uponwhere even arguments, has is order that thereof. otherwise EX held in been MW-
dated to Rudhan it be rejected, I was could 1/M6.
transpired illegal 08/05/08.
Singh not have as Vol.
pursuant present that well (supra). been Being While Grievance as thereto in at unjustified.
the Therefore, any summoned a Committee terms full by Issue itand scale theis order concerned was isstigmatic imperative.
senior - Departmental officers In to other thereenquiry words, me,(SUJATA was no was ifKOHLI) the employee need necessary.
for meistofound While to have the necessary and at observation committed formal proceedings conditions management no.tenor the It 2 said "In the iswas foramount. enquiry of decided very the the held of misconduct ofwhich senior guide to nature employee such judgment, Hon'ble service has against prove thatwas been postin of meeting other the High However,the things, to stated and it case althoughplead ,initiated, these was alleged management Court there officials. conduct the to implied kind in be that Iworkman J.U. am cannot culminatinghe proceedings. an intheofthat rules that order basis was Akhtar Additionalabsolutely documents and case Vol.
thein hasbe of notarendered District Iastraight Vs. terminating favour onus in was gainfully termination AsUniversity neverunaware Management & finding regards that towas ofprovethe jaclet Sessions went employed aprobation the of the impugned workman. order long the formula Judge Non-Academic guilt;
proceedings exceptional had period that from ofwould neverfor M/s order theof the date of relief awarding his termination----.
through administrative ofabout back methis atso wages. any head. stage.
called Presiding AllIt relevant is wrong meeting.It is wrong Officer toThe suggest considerations to Labour suggest resolution thatCourt-II, Iwill enter the service circumstances Markfed and Agro the time would reported elapsed be on as after the employer.
2006 his
VIII termination
AD However,
(Delhi) was
33, smaller
in
the Kendriya Hon'ble in comparison, Vidyalya Delhi was appear order been Employees before verdict. not produced ofthe to More termination stigmatic ISSUE No. 1(Relief) Establishment be werethat am or innocuous by tendered by the management at this stage is may produced lessdeposing I the uponam of it management service would deposing this, itself, Committee on falsely beHon'ble thewould the a next on falsely. on same it motion be ground never its Supreme date,held would own Karkardooma Vol.
only saw addressed of stigmatic. nor Court be light Isympathy. a they am photocopy vitiated toof Courts, observed a were theday.
There very ifcalled I of in discretion that minutes effect itofHigh upon also was and by be of the On 'What is alternative employment?, while it Delhi. was the view earlier that full Sanghtan Court back Tribunal. has wages Full heldback Vs. responsible am S.C. could that not being in be wages Sharma, awarded.
supporting taken such person would 2005 on record cases, beany LLR theand However, normal one. father 275, and Irule being compensation amif of while only the andEX senior the denying workman CW1/X1.
emphasising cannot party IPS hasthatbeen beobjecting less thatto than inthe ita
35. must only
37. surprising substance cases the Grievance The workman where aestablish regular entire itas Committee is the and or the found documents hisorder allegations A/R towere Icircumstances Officer. the REINSTATEMENT/BACKWAGES substantial false have be Iand ex-facie document seen am stigmatic i.e produced Ex.
no
gainful
the not
involved was doubt WW1/M2, necessitating of in aware stigmatic but nature.
employment statement the Ld. moralnotARthe management.
shown as Ex.
the to Itturpitude and forwasMW1/1, original. workman also departure". would to whether further bebepunitive.
on Ex.
Matter held the also considered dated MW1/2 part that could was Sinceeven toofagain & have the deny 3, if short back reliefwages term of back heemployment wouldisotherwise wages at the or discretion was appointed be entitled of to.the court,without it was followingheld thatthe it wasproper for claimant At this service stagewas 1this terminated register orand is directed about I to the be back wages The principle to the20.4.01 was emphatically workman, at page it has of this restated been register held Gujarat in now, in North Steel state Tubes Est Karnatka Ltd. Vs. procedure theEx.
order the delinquent very adjourned WW1/M4, claimant/workman well employeewas etc.,founded called The rule ofthat for official. to awardproduction Ex.
reasons sealed show uponon MW1/4, of The back that civilsame the full thecame language ground back of management therefor. he law alsoin Ex.
an was original to wages WW1/M5, know that used envelope. that not not appellant minutes could in at to Grievance gainfully containing a contract the a produce Ex.not later order ofWW1/M6, had employed of my be the personalstage proper.
failed oftheGrievance termination Committee same the after signatures in Ex. the real hisMW1/5 and service cannotperformance Committee. object of there service termination.to was and Ex.
be
38. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, workman is Gujarat Road SteelState InTrasporation U.P. Tubes Meetingany Mazdoor XXXXxx Vs. Brassware may where. M. have Sabha byI Ld. Nagangauda, amtaken Corporation AR(AIR not for place, 1980, awareworkman.
2007Vs. I UdaicanSC of LLR 1896), not anyNarain 340 say, such inIthat the even Pandey, following self 2006 The initial specifically of hisex-facie purport may gross Management MW1/12. onus enforced, negligence duties forand whichhas therefore, administratively be then most does stigmatic. innot on the handling ofthe not termination the next now limit documents The this and date shifted the language aspect.
technically. order produced to of used the wasthe jurisdiction workman.
ButManagement management since the issued, thereunder Reference of originalthe documents labour he could was may register clearly courts.
then also in challenge question reflect It containing had show was tothat the i.e was Nil.
statement. Opportunity present The nor said given".
aware. statement is being may EX words:
employment awarded which would with reinstatement fetchcontinuity any earning ofthat to the and service employee, with 50% includingback LLR alwaysIt 214,came the understood Hon'ble to havebe that Supreme reiterated written when time namesanCourt and order of considered again any of retrenchment members, various grant what of previous reinstatement hascan been judgments declared and CW1/Y1. I was Sr. Administrative Officer at same there proceedings minutes it casewas agricultural was thereafter. oftrying "Traveling of something Deepati meeting pursuitshappened to overlevel The Prakash would serious over and the foundation tosame bebe and showing charges directly above Premjeet ground included ofthe of the the inrelevant misconduct Vs. by attendance order assertion going 'gainful to having Satender thethat through against employment'.ofentire been the theevery Nath officer the members disclosed controversy Bossworkman was by offound National precedent and theis rendered back 'illegal',wagesthe by was same it I a say andthe ismatterwhen relevant concluded supposed of I was time discretion to not that be i.e there void in there of the the inyear wasthe labour ab-initio meeting.2001
no and court and binding hence, andnow It isI precedent that the inoperative; order that of the wages.
supererogatory and we Thus, from wrong amthe tohold retired. suggest position the that of rule Iisam reinstatement simple deposing that falsely.
and the discretion back wages I to deny being the
33. appellant unsuitable since meeting.
insteadIn reinstatement the Centre result labour theyof is contrast for that in The holding courtfor were that the and Basic or the said to case stated pare should job.
a this, employee register full detailed at Sciences; toAbove a document down back show later be was the would enquiry thestage mentioned wages AIR directed very Ex.
application be 1999 quantum the therein basis CW1/X original should deemed SC to ofoftests, of beand 983, termination retained which back mind to always behowever, order giving wages wherein on was isthis the continuingbean on are held opportunity order, record alleged is thegrantednot absent point. to entire in it exhaustive be till wasvitiated minutesfurther when save (Hindustan case service toalso the ofa for law and (At this stage have seen the statement on page already Ld. AR for management Sh.
39. exceptional automatic Reference reasons."
consequence is answered accordingly. Award of a retrenchment being to is passed.
found illegal, Copy we of have thecomeawarda termination therefore, the is grantRajeev EXCW1/Y1 held to of be the Dayal illegal.
relief seeks
and It it
of usedwas permission may held reinstatement be so that that a and cross it persons full mayexamine back is have not wages entitledalongwithto get Motors in incumbent orders.
workman the law.
the Ltd.
said
alleged This Vs.
tocase.
uponbe
court
Grievance Tapan
heard,
the
Thethen management language the Kumar directedmanagement Committee Sh. toreported R.S. in have Meeting impugned came as Vashisth, come up(2002 held up with order on 6was Secretary with the 20/04/01 SCC, the termination found 41; proceedings to at be Indian examined to 10.30 be order ex-
amon with respect to this been a probationer witness. in my Allowed.
hand had
but been
)
still reviewed
do not know by the
in Hon'ble
what Supreme
longbe way
Thento
sent to inaappropriate
position where Mohanlal Vs. Bharat government award of for full Electronics, back wages publication 1981 within has (3)30 actually SCC, days from become 215, the the something all benefits Railway Construction only of because continuous XXXXXXX it would service Co.this Vs. meeting be would Ajay lawful by Sh. Kumarbe to do automatic. Rajeev reportedso.
Dayal, It was asLd. also (2003) acknowledged AR 4 SCC, 579; connection was held. It is correct facie their as simply (3) shows rare.
Court principleCW1. stigmatic.
ownoftried Sh.
and In and itR.S.Jaswant wasto Vashisth, reinstatement since make observed itSingh itwith would look Secretary that full case like have theback -termination as said been being wages is the itdecision when one was best simplicitor of thepiece fully again veryof members covered reiterated onservice evidence the account present said although after caseof in in it that ever In since Hindustan for that management KendriyaITinunderstand Works Vidalaya English Vs. Its very Sangthan employees well. (supra), Some reported body the as onus 1979 to (2) prove SCC M.P.receiptState ofElectricity the award. Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141;
was The
noticed concept
that must
some Ihave
ofcase know back of the Roshangoes approached wages earlier Lal alongwith judgments claimant, me for had workman assistance reinstatement indicated whofora since that labour itspeak was court
29.
32. possession workmanIn However, prescribed the the meeting. unemployment as well. being present of management.
most probation Documents had on probation.
shiftedsurprising also period of to since To withhold is management the was admittedly workman. the testimony over, such are the kind that absolutely workman of of court evidence discharge false was witness and did on order probation, not Sh.making fabricated. R.S. 80, UP the normal State Textile writing rule is Corporation present atokind grant in court.
ofVs. areinstatement P.C.He draft andwas ChaturvediI just an with employee helped reported fullhimback asby of (2005) wages 8,bySCC, was
40. considered In after weighing view to be of all the continuation the facts false and fabricated andofcircumstances, the service documents itself.
maythat However, award filed/tendered the latest trend compensation in lieutheis Then once management.
writing
again it
in downJ.K. but I I
Synthetics am was aware not Vs. concerned K.P. Agarwal he about was the s. reported as
36. the well Vashisth, (2) The acknowledged
34. order for entire allegations Since theExecutive terminating the credibility background onSecretary against Meru theYuva Screening basis his him,of himself the service of of management.
the was Kendra facts Grievances is previous clearly passed.
who no isdoubt Sangathan whosuggests judgments. stigmatic Surrounding shown Vs.hastoMehboob himself that beIt was in present its failed effect observed circumstances present Alam case to stand in and the is said that Lasker; not the by also if
211). In Chowkidar.
meeting as such. I am I can not not aware say name about of any such that even reinstatement of management reinstatement and back appropriate is wages.
being replacedare proceedings by separately the compensation. being initiated In M/s against Lords 2007 after a LLR protracted 358, time misconducts person the and Hon'ble energy as I doalleged Supreme consuming not even to remember have Court litigation been has what noticed during committed actually which the previous period the
31.one same the showing meetingHowever, document. of Thencould termination Thereafter, came that has not General leaving Statement discharge denied both have of service been having the wasHaryana aside above of passed notsimplicitor CW1 the ever based reliefs Roadways technical is without attended being solely ofonly but on any reinstatement Vs. holding reproduced the aspectsanorder such Rudhanan and is assessment enquiry Singh hereunder absolutely meeting. and considering back of and(2005), The wages for punitive giving appellant's the5 easy entire have Homeopathic (2008) 2 SCC Laboratories must by the 479, it have said Roshanwas Vs. heldMs.
happened. Lissy
that
Lal atNayyar, Unnikunju
in the
Being eventreported
senior of as 2006
unsatisfactory IV,
workman
judgments the management just andsustainshas concluded himself, officials i.ethat ultimately Sh.award V.K. he ofany is back point to bewages of time.
told Section that isOfficer becomingIt (Admn.), though herare.
willDr. To be SCC, undergone 591. The administrative Hon'ble isbe correct Court that officer, listed Ms. a Aruna it few was Surender factors my Sitesh duty on was Kumar which to help Principal Verma the or award Vs. of Centralback AD opportunity documents reference:-
and work anda conduct stigmatic. (Delhi), proceedings progressive to to 739, the brought As absolutely theworkman such, during dilution.
Hon'ble by the termination necessary to probationbeIn High management heard for
-ofTermination Court inbetter service his are defence.
and of rendered Delhi ofjust the held has Itdecision false workman iscited
- not only of Stigmatic and the aroundwithout a case fabricated and20 quote reinstated,from he performance the will judgment:
by guide thebeother denied employee, back officials. the wages termination It is which correct of would thatprobation there bewere due would tohavehim,been the Aruna wages could Sitesh, of Principal/Chairman be based. college Someinof 2001. these factors (at & this Sh.are:stage R.D. witness Verma, isAdministration Govt. Industrial judgments of the Tribunal, Supreme officials senior 1981 Court to (1) SCR, andinDelhi me 2001 789, High i.e itVicewas Court held that to The Principal, concludethere may that be in where and holding workman record. in noorder "Coming punitive. any would It enquiry Heldstandsconfronted enquiry to arrive "(Sealed
-back be thewas quite into atheld wages subjected test with the the even governing well original envelope and truth tocharges ano ofthe ifsort explained of opportunity the court of terminationEX containing is absolutely matter, WW- thenfinds penalty was thatof for 1/M6). management itthe violative given register necessary no-fault probation management to of the was isof provisions tono workman directed award his andback longer avoided itresof to is to held to1.beNature justified.
Principal,of However,
employment Versor when
etc. It
(whether the is foundation obvious permanent that for there or such was temporary an order or isshort not wages, exceptional Incharge suitable the cases a signatures question circumstances in accordance containing compensation will be at where with point pages whether law.
should anA1order are to back be 3only iswages of granted initials opened in should reinstatement lieu atand this of not beandstagethe awarded reinstatement.full backfully wages or wholly undeserved. term governing daily It wage was body stated basis of etc.) that trustees.any other I view can not would say be placing a onlybe produce I.D. heard, Act When partially integra. examine as the anyitwellisfull said (and also otheraandas signatures ifGrievance principles aCW so, disciplinary officercase 1 of the whereof of Ms. ispercentage).
shown Committee enquiry the natural management Aruna management the justice That is initiated Sitesh register). Proceedings also has asonno-one depends Iusually come the shownhave through premiseup uponcan as put seen with be beingtheacondemned that competent absolutely facts thereand present arein may an be unsatisfactory impossible Although
2. Method there whether performance or of inequitable are there selection various wasand on e.g., recent any the part when of judgments specific employment. the the legal employee industryof the advisor might Hon'ble of but haveovert closed Supreme acts premium Fileon circumstances bean ofwhile the each unwarranted cosigned the tomarking minutes record ofroom.
litigative case, the income Grievance any post. Committee activity of the received (Ld. employer. AR byMeetings for the employee during
3. Length the management management ofon service. is or directed not. It has been very long the downfalse officer unheard serious Court the and relevant or and and manipulated management allegations granting meeting,might which period be small even pasted of inhas documents.
inwhat accountwas misconduct amount though severe the of theyalso has of register happened directed on financial compensation were atto alternative the pageplace parttoinof doldrums admittedly andthepresent 2produce the employment ranging Ioriginal state the delinquent or still where from in that the on service case.
or Rs. Termination officer the servicerules business and concerned 10,000/- ofofisthe the hisa to However, amounting 4. Time to in time.elapsedthe misconduct, same There after judgment, an may his opportunity have termination. deviation been. of It from hearing is wrong this to to rule the was employee also relevant Announced factor in therecord to be itopen in istaken thenote certainly court course ofnot ofcontaining while theawarding day). Imy am back notwages, signatures awarein addition to employeenone 25,000/-, would have ofsuggest thesecontents secured judgments that forof an the employment lay down that reason any else formula there where.
were By the very or guidelines other to arrivetone
30. employees, of recognized Today the service During explanation management and on 01/10/2008 several of course factorsitabout all the there was and anythis workman of final videhas observed mentioned upon where even arguments, is order thatinEXRudhan held been thereof. otherwise MW-
dated
to itwas
be
rejected, I could 1/M6.
transpired illegal 08/05/08.
Singh not have asVol.
pursuant present that (supra). been Being wellWhileGrievance as thereto in at unjustified.
the aCommittee Therefore, any summoned terms fullbyIssueitand scale theis concerned is senior imperative. officers In to otherme,(SUJATAwords, there was ifKOHLI) the no need employee for meistofound to have necessary and at committed formal proceedings conditions management no.tenor the It 2 said "In the iswas foramount. enquiry of decided very the the held of misconduct which senior guide to nature employee such judgment, service has against prove thatwas been postin of meeting other the the However, things, to stated and it case althoughplead ,initiated, these was alleged management there officials. conduct the to implied kind in be that Iworkman J.U. am ofcannot culminatinghe Additional proceedings. anthe rules that order basis was Akhtar absolutely documents and Vol.
thein hasbe of not arendered DistrictIastraight Vs. terminating favour onus in gainfully termination AsUniversity neverunaware Management & finding regards towas ofprove the jaclet Sessions went employed aprobation the of the workman. order long the formula Judge Non-Academic guilt;
proceedings exceptional had period that from ofwould neverfor M/s the of the date of relief awarding his termination----.
through administrative ofabout back methis atso wages. any head. stage.
called Presiding AllIt relevant is wrong meeting.It is wrong Officer toThe suggest considerations to Labour thatCourt-II, suggest resolution Iwill enter the service circumstances Markfed and Agro the time would reported elapsed be on as after the employer.
2006 his
VIII termination
AD However,
(Delhi)Karkardoomawas 33, smaller in the Kendriya Hon'ble Courts, in comparison, Vidyalya Delhi High appear order been Employees before verdict. produced ofthe to More termination ISSUE No. 1(Relief) Establishment be werethat am or innocuous by tendered by the management at this stage is may produced deposing less Ithe am of it management service would deposing itself, Committee on falsely bethewould the a next on falsely. on same it motion be ground never its date,held would own Vol.
only saw addressed of stigmatic. nor be light Isympathy. a they am photocopy vitiated toof awere day.
the There very ifcalled I of in discretion minutes effect upon also of and by be of the On 'What is alternative employment?, while it Delhi. was the view earlier that full Sanghtan Court back Tribunal. has wages Full heldback Vs. responsible am S.C. could that not being in be wages Sharma, awarded.
supporting taken such person would 2005 on record cases, beany LLR theand However, normal one. father 275, and Irule being compensation amif of while only the andEX senior the denying workman CW1/X1.
emphasising cannot party IPS hasthatbeen beobjecting less thatto than intheita
35. must only
37. substance cases the Grievance The workman where aestablish regular entire itCommittee is the and or the found documents hisallegations A/R towere Icircumstances Officer. the REINSTATEMENT/BACKWAGES substantial false have beIand document seen am stigmatic i.e produced Ex.
no
gainful
the not
involved doubt WW1/M2, necessitating of in aware but nature.
employment statement the Ld. moralnotARthe management.
shown as Ex.
the to Itturpitude forwas MW1/1, original. departure".
would to whether workman further be on bedated Ex.
Matter held the also considered MW1/2 part that could wasto even ofagain & have denythe 3, if short back reliefwages term of back heemployment wouldisotherwise wages at the or discretion was appointed be entitled of to.the court,without it was followingheld thatthe it wasproper for claimant At this service stagewas 1this terminated register orand is directed about I to the be back wages The principle to the20.4.01 was emphatically workman, at page it has of this restated been register held Gujarat in now, in NorthSteel state Tubes Est Karnatka Ltd. Vs. procedure theEx.
the delinquent very adjourned WW1/M4, claimant/workman well employee etc.,called The rule ofthat for official. to awardproduction Ex.
reasons sealed show upon MW1/4, of The back that civilsame full the came language back of management therefor. he in law also Ex.
an was original to wages WW1/M5, know used envelope. that not not minutes could in at to Grievance gainfully containing a contract the a produce Ex.not later order ofWW1/M6, employed of my be thestage personalproper.
oftheGrievance termination Committee same the after signatures Ex. real hisMW1/5 and service cannot Committee.
object of there service termination.to was and Ex.
be
38. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, workman is Gujarat Road SteelState InTrasporation U.P. Tubes Meetingany Mazdoor XXXXxx Vs. Brassware may where. M. have Sabha byI Ld. Nagangauda, amtaken Corporation AR(AIR not for place, 1980, awareworkman.
2007Vs. I Udai canSC of LLR 1896), not any Narain 340 say, such inIthat the even Pandey, following self 2006 The initial specifically purport may gross Management MW1/12. ex-facieonus enforced, negligence forand which behas then most therefore, does stigmatic. innot on the handling ofthe not termination the next now limit documents The this date shifted the language aspect.
order produced to of used the wasthe jurisdiction workman.
ButManagement management since the issued, thereunderof originalthe documents labour he could may register clearly courts.
also in challenge question reflect It containing show that was the i.e was Nil.
statement. Opportunity present The nor said given".
aware. statement is being mayEX words:
employment awarded which would with reinstatement fetchcontinuity any earning ofthat to the and service employee, with 50% includingback LLR alwaysIt 214,came the understood Hon'ble to havebe that Supreme reiterated written when time namesanCourt and order of considered again any of retrenchment members, various grant what of previous reinstatement hascan been judgments declared and CW1/Y1. I was Sr. Administrative Officer at same there proceedings minutes it was was thereafter. trying "Traveling agricultural of something meeting pursuitshappened to overlevelThe would serious over theand foundation tosame bebe and showing charges directly above ground included ofthe of the the inrelevant bymisconduct attendance order assertion going 'gainful to having thethat throughagainst ofentire employment'. been the theeveryofficer the members disclosed controversy workman was by precedent of foundand the is rendered back 'illegal',wagesthe by was same it I a say andthe ismatterwhen relevant concluded supposed of I was time discretion to not that be i.e there void in there of the the inyear wasthe labour ab-initio meeting.2001
no and court and binding hence, now and It isI precedent that the inoperative; order that of the wages.
supererogatory and we Thus, from wrong amthe tohold retired. suggest position the that of rule Iisam reinstatement simple deposing that falsely.
and the discretion back wages I to deny being the
33.
the appellant unsuitable since meeting. instead result In theyof is contrast reinstatement labour that in The holding courtfor were that or the and the said to case stated pare should job.
a this, full employee register detailed at down to Above a document back show later be was the would enquiry thestage mentioned wages directed very Ex.
quantum application be the therein basis CW1/X original should deemed to ofoftests, of beand termination retained which back mind to always behowever, order giving wages on was isthis the be continuing an on are held opportunity order, record alleged is grantednot absent point. in to it exhaustive be till wasvitiated minutes save (Hindustan service further when toalso the ofa for and (At this stage have seen the statement on page already Ld. AR for management Sh.
39. exceptional automatic Reference reasons."
consequence is answered accordingly. Award of a retrenchment being to is passed.
found illegal, Copy we of have thecomeawarda termination therefore, the is grantRajeev EXCW1/Y1 held to of be theDayalillegal.
relief seeks
and It it
of usedwas permission may held reinstatement be so that that a and crossit persons full mayexamine back is have not wages entitled to alongwith get Motors in incumbent orders.
workman thelaw.
the Ltd.
said
alleged This Vs.
tocase.
uponbe
court
Grievance Tapan
heard,
the
The then management language the Kumar directedmanagement Committee Sh. toreported R.S. in have Meeting impugned came as Vashisth, come up(2002 held upwith order on 6was Secretary with the 20/04/01 SCC, the termination found 41; proceedings to at be to Indian examined 10.30 be order ex-
on
am
long way
Thento this
been
inaappropriate witness.
position where Mohanlal in my Allowed.
hand Vs. Bharat but award of ) still fulldo Electronics, not back wages know 1981 inhas what (3)30 actually SCC, become 215, the all be something sent benefits toonly of because continuous itgovernment would service be would for lawful be publication to do automatic. so. Itwithin was also days from acknowledged the Railway Construction connection XXXXXXXCo.this Vs. meeting Ajay by Sh. Kumar was Rajeev reported held. Dayal, It is asLd. (2003) correct AR 4 SCC, 579; facie their as simply (3) shows rare.
principleCW1. stigmatic.
ownoftried Sh. In and R.S. Jaswant reinstatement make itSingh to Vashisth, since itwith would look Secretary full case like have back -termination as been it is the being wages when one was best simplicitor of thepiece again veryof members reiterated onservice evidence account present although of afterin in it that ever In since Hindustan for that management KendriyaI Tin understand Works Vidalaya English Vs. Its very Sangthan employees well. (supra),Some reported body the as onus 1979 to (2) prove SCC M.P.receiptState ofElectricity the award. Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141;
was The
noticed concept
that must
some Ihave
ofcase know back of the Roshangoes approached wages earlier Lal alongwith judgments claimant, me for had workman assistance reinstatement indicated whofora since that labour itspeak was court
29.
32. possession workmanIn However, prescribed the the meeting. unemployment being present of management.
most probation Documents had on probation.
shifted surprising also period of to since To withhold is management the was admittedly workman. the testimony over, such are the kind that absolutely workman of of court evidence dischargefalse was witness and did on order probation, not Sh.making fabricated. R.S. 80, UP the normal State Textile writing rule is Corporation present atokind grant in court.
ofVs. areinstatement P.C.He draft andwas ChaturvediI just an with employee helped reported fullhimback asby of (2005) wages 8,bySCC,was
40. considered In after weighing view to be of all the continuation the facts false and fabricated andofcircumstances, the service documents itself.
maythat However, award filed/tendered the latest trend compensation in lieuthe is Then once management.
writing again it in down J.K. but I I Synthetics am was aware not Vs. concerned K.P. Agarwal he about was the s. reported as
36. the well Vashisth, The acknowledged
34. order for entire allegations Since theExecutive terminating the credibility background onSecretary against the basis Screening his him,of himself the service of of management.
the was facts Grievances is clearly previous passed.
who no isdoubt whosuggests judgments. stigmatic Surrounding shown hastohimself that beIt wasin present its failed effect observed circumstances present case to stand in and the is said that not the by also if
211). Chowkidar.
meeting as such. I am I can not not aware say name about of any such that even reinstatement of management reinstatement and back appropriate is wages.
being replacedare proceedings by separately the compensation. being initiated In M/s against Lords 2007 after a LLR protracted 358, time misconducts person the and Hon'ble energy as I doalleged Supreme consuming not even to remember have Court litigation been has what noticed during committed actually which the previous period the
31.one same the showing meetingHowever, document. of Thencould termination Thereafter, came that has not General leaving Statement discharge denied have both the of service been havingwasHaryana aside above of passed notsimplicitor CW1 the ever based reliefs Roadways technical is without attended being solelybut on any of reinstatement Vs. holding reproduced the aspectsansuchRudhan order an and is assessment enquiry Singh hereunder absolutely meeting. and considering back as of and(2005), for punitive giving appellant's The wages the5 easy entire have Homeopathic Laboratories must by the have said Roshan Vs. Ms. happened. Lal LissyatNayyar, Unnikunju Being reported senior 2006 IV, workman judgments the management just andsustainshas concluded himself, officials i.ethat ultimately Sh.award V.K. he ofany is back point to bewages of time.
told Section that isOfficer becomingIt (Admn.), though herare.
willDr. To be SCC, undergone 591. The administrative Hon'ble isbe correct Courtthat officer, listed Ms. a Aruna it few was Surender factors my Sitesh duty on was Kumar which to help Principal Verma the or award Vs. of back Central AD opportunity documents reference:-
and work anda conduct stigmatic. (Delhi), proceedings progressive to to 739, the brought As absolutely theworkman such, during dilution.
Hon'ble by the termination necessary to probationbeIn High management heard for
-ofTermination Court inbetter service his are defence.
and of rendered Delhi ofjust the held has Itdecision falseworkman iscited
- not only of Stigmatic and the aroundwithout a caseand 20 quote reinstated,from he the will judgment:
guide beother denied back wages officials. It is whichthat correct would there bewere due tofabricated him, the Aruna wages could Sitesh, of Principal/Chairman be based. college Someinof 2001. these factors (at & this Sh.are:stage R.D. witness Verma, isAdministration Govt. Industrial judgments of the Tribunal, Supreme officials senior 1981 Court to (1) SCR, andinDelhi me 2001 789, High i.e it was Vice Court held that to The Principal, concludethere may that be in where and holding workman record. in noorder "Coming punitive. any would It enquiry Heldstandsconfronted enquiry to arrive "(Sealed
-back be was thequite into atheld wages subjected test with the the even governing well original envelope and truth tocharges ano ofthe ifsort explained of opportunity the court of terminationEX containing is absolutely matter, WW- thenfinds penalty was thatoffor 1/M6). management itthe violative given register necessary no-fault probation management to of the was isof provisions tono workman directed award his andback longer avoided of to itresis to
1. Nature Principal,of employmentVersor etc. It (whether is obvious permanent that there or was temporary or short wages, exceptional Incharge suitable the cases a signatures question circumstances in accordance containing compensation will be at where with point pages whether law.
should anA1order are to back be 3only iswages of granted initials opened in should reinstatement lieu atand this of not be stage and the awarded full backfully reinstatement. wages or wholly undeserved. term governing daily It wage was body stated basis of etc.) that trustees.any other I view can not would say be placing a onlybe produce I.D. heard, Act When partially integra. examine as the anyitwellisfull said (and also otheraandas signatures ifGrievance principles aCW so, disciplinary officercase 1 of the whereof of Ms. ispercentage).
shown Committee enquiry the natural management Aruna management the justice That is initiated Sitesh register). Proceedings also has as depends Iusually onno-onecome the shownhave through up premisecan seen upon as putwith be beingtheacondemned that competent absolutely facts thereand present are in may be impossible Although
2. Method there whether or of inequitable are there selection various wasand e.g., recent any whenjudgments specific employment. the legal industryof the advisor might Hon'ble of have closed Supreme premium Fileon circumstances bean ofwhile the each unwarranted cosigned the tomarking minutes ofroom.
litigative case, record the income Grievance any post. Committee activity of the received (Ld.employer. AR byMeetings for the employee during
3. Length the management management ofon service. is or directed not. It has been very long the downfalse officer unheard serious Court the and relevant or and and manipulated management allegations granting meeting,might which period be small even pasted has of in documents.
inwhat was account misconduct amount though severe the of theyalso has of register happened directed on financial compensation were atto alternative the pageplace parttoinof doldrums admittedly andthepresent 2produce the employment ranging Ioriginal state the delinquent or still where from in that the on service case.
or Rs. Termination officer the servicerules business ofisthe and concerned 10,000/- of the hisa to However,
4. Time in time.elapsedthe same There after judgment, may his have termination. deviation been. It from is wrong this to rule was also relevant Announced factor in therecord to be itopen in istaken thenote certainly court course ofnot ofcontaining while theawarding day). Imy am back notwages, signatures awarein addition to employeenone 25,000/-, would have ofsuggest thesecontents secured judgments that forof an the employment lay down that reason any else formula there where.
were By the very or guidelines other tone to arrive
30. employees, of recognized Today the service During explanation management and on 01/10/2008 several of course factorsitabout all the there was and this any workman of final videhas observed mentioned upon where even arguments, is order thatinEXRudhan held been thereof. otherwise MW-
dated to Ibe itwas rejected, could 1/M6.
transpired illegal 08/05/08.
Singh not have asVol.
pursuant presentthat (supra). been Being wellWhileGrievance asthereto in at unjustified.
the aCommittee Therefore, any summoned terms fullbyIssue itand scale is the senior officers to me,(SUJATA there wasKOHLI) no need for me to necessary and at formal proceedings conditions management no.tenor the It 2 said "In the iswas foramount. enquiry of decidedvery the the held ofwhich senior guide to nature employee such judgment, service has against prove thatwas been postin of meeting other the the things, to stated However,and it case plead ,initiated, these was alleged management there officials. conduct the to implied kind in be that Iworkman J.U. amofcannot he culminatingAkhtar Additional proceedings. the rules that basis was absolutely documents and Vol.
thein hasbe of not arendered favour onus in Iastraight Vs. District gainfully termination AsUniversity neverunaware Management & finding regards towas ofprove the jaclet Sessions went athe ofemployed the workman. order long the formula Judge Non-Academic guilt;
proceedings exceptional had period thatfrom ofnever for M/s the of the date of relief awarding his termination----.
through administrative ofabout back me atso wages.
this any
head. stage.
called Presiding
AllIt relevant is wrong It is wrong meeting. Officer toThe suggest considerations to Labour thatCourt-II, suggest resolution Iwill enter the service circumstances Markfed and Agro the time would reported elapsed be on as after the employer.
2006 his
VIII termination
AD However,
(Delhi) was
Karkardooma33, smaller
in
the Kendriya Hon'ble Courts, in comparison, Vidyalya Delhi High order been Employees before verdict. produced ofthe More termination ISSUE No. 1(Relief) Establishment werethat am or by tendered by the management at this stage is may produced deposing less Ithe am of it management service would deposing Committee on falsely bethewould a next on falsely. on it motion be ground never its date,held own Vol.
only saw addressedof stigmatic. nor light Isympathy. a they am photocopy toof awere day.
the There very called I of discretion minutes upon also of the by be of On 'What is alternative employment?, while it Delhi. was the view earlier that full Sanghtan Court back Tribunal. has wages Full heldback Vs. responsible am S.C. could that not being in be wages Sharma, awarded.
supporting taken such person would 2005 on record cases, beany LLR theand However, normal one. father 275, and Irule being compensation amif of while only the andEX senior the denying workman CW1/X1.
emphasising cannot party IPS hasthatbeen beobjecting less thatto than intheita
35. must only
37. cases the Grievance The workman where aestablish regular entire Committee the and or thedocuments hisallegations A/R Icircumstances Officer. the REINSTATEMENT/BACKWAGES substantial false have wereIand document seen am i.e produced Ex.
no
gainful
the not
involved doubt WW1/M2, necessitating of aware but Ld. employment statement the moralnotARthe management.
shown as Ex.
the to turpitude for MW1/1, original. departure".
would to whether
workman
be on
bedated Ex.
Matter the also considered MW1/2 part could wastoofagain & have denythe 3, short back reliefwages term of back employment he wouldisotherwise wages at the or discretion was appointed be entitled of to.the court,without it was followingheld thatthe it wasproperfor claimant At this servicestagewas 1this terminated register orand is directed about I to the be back wages The principle to the20.4.01 was emphatically workman, at page it has of this restated been register held Gujarat in now, in NorthSteel state Tubes Est Karnatka Ltd. Vs. procedure theEx.
delinquent very adjourned WW1/M4, well employee etc.,called The rule ofthatfor official. to awardproduction Ex.
reasons sealed show upon MW1/4, of The back that civilsame full thelanguage back of management therefor. he in law also Ex.
an was original wages WW1/M5, used envelope. that not not minutes could into Grievance gainfully containing a contract the produce Ex.notorder of WW1/M6, be employed of my the personalproper.
oftheGrievance termination Committee same after signatures Ex. hisMW1/5 and service cannot Committee.
of there service termination.to was Ex.
be
38. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, workman is Gujarat Road SteelState InTrasporation U.P. Tubes Meetingany Mazdoor XXXXxx Vs. Brassware may where. M. have Sabha byI Ld. Nagangauda, amtaken Corporation AR(AIR not for place, 1980, awareworkman.
2007Vs. I Udai canSC of LLR 1896), not any Narain 340 say, such inIthat the even Pandey, following self 2006 The initial specifically may ex-facie gross Management MW1/12. onus enforced, negligenceandwas behas then most therefore, does stigmatic. innot onhandling ofthe the not next now limit documents The this date shifted the language aspect.
produced to of used thethe jurisdiction workman.
ButManagement management since the of thereunder originalthe documents labour may register clearly courts.
also in question reflect It containing show that wasi.e Nil.
statement. Opportunity present The nor said given".
aware. statement is being mayEX words:
employment awarded which would with reinstatement fetchcontinuity any earning ofthat to the and service employee, with 50% including back LLR alwaysIt 214,came the understood Hon'ble to havebe that Supreme reiterated written when time namesanCourt and order of considered again any of retrenchment members, various grant what of previous reinstatement hascan been judgments declared and CW1/Y1. I was Sr. Administrative Officer at there proceedings minutes it was was trying "Traveling agricultural of something meeting happened to over pursuits level would serious over theand tosame bebe and showing charges directly above ground included the of the inrelevant bymisconduct attendance assertion going 'gainful toemployment'.
thethat throughagainst ofentire the theeveryofficer the members controversy workman was of precedent found and the is rendered back 'illegal',wagesthe by was same it I a say andthe ismatterwhen relevant concluded supposed of I was time discretion to not that be i.e there voidin there of the the inyear wasthe labour ab-initio meeting.2001
no and court and binding hence, now and It isI precedent that the inoperative; order that of the wages.
supererogatory and we Thus, from wrong amthe tohold retired. suggest position the that rule Iisam ofmentioned reinstatement simple deposing that falsely.
and the discretion back wages I to deny being the
33. unsuitable since meeting.
insteadIn reinstatement the result labour theyof is contrast that The holding courtfor were the and or the said to stated pare should job.
a this, full employee register detailed down to Above document back show be was the would enquiry the wages directed very Ex.
quantum application be therein basis CW1/X should deemed to ofoftests, of beand mind to termination retained which back however, always be giving wages on isthis the be continuing an on are opportunity order, record alleged is grantednot absent point. in it exhaustive till was minutesfurther when save (Hindustan service toalso the ofa for and (At this stage have seen the statement on page already Ld. AR for management Sh.
39. exceptional automatic Reference reasons."
consequence is answered accordingly. Award of a retrenchment being to is passed.
found illegal, Copy we of have thecomeawarda termination therefore, the is Rajeev EXCW1/Y1 held grant to of be theDayalillegal.
relief seeks and It it of usedwas permission may held reinstatement be so that that a and crossit persons full mayexamine back is have not wages entitled to alongwith get Motors in incumbent orders.
workman thethe Ltd.
said alleged This Vs. tocase.
uponbe court Grievance Tapan heard, the The then management language the Kumar directed management Committee Sh. toreported R.S. in have Meeting impugned came as Vashisth, come up(2002 held upwith order on 6was Secretary with the 20/04/01 SCC, the termination found 41; proceedings to at be to Indian examined 10.30 beorder ex-
on
am
long way
Thento this
been
inaappropriate witness.
position where Mohanlal in my Allowed.
hand Vs. Bharat but award of ) still fulldo Electronics, not back wages know 1981 inhas what (3)30 actually SCC, become 215, the all be something sent benefits toonly of because continuous itgovernment would service be would for lawfulbe publication to do automatic. so. Itwithin was also days from acknowledged the Railway Construction connection XXXXXXXCo.this Vs. meeting Ajay by Sh. KumarwasRajeev reported held. Dayal, It is asLd. (2003) correct AR 4 SCC, 579; facie their as simply shows rare.
principleCW1. stigmatic.
ownoftried Sh. andto Vashisth, R.S. reinstatement since make ititwith would look Secretary full like have back termination as been being the wages one best was simplicitor of the again piece members reiterated of on evidence account present of although in in it that ever In since Hindustan for that management KendriyaI Tin understand Works Vidalaya English Vs. Its very Sangthan employees well. (supra), Some reported body the as onus 1979 to (2) prove SCC M.P.receiptState ofElectricity the award. Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141; The concept must Ihave ofcase know back Roshangoes approached wages Lal alongwith claimant, me for workman assistance reinstatement whofora since was
29.
32. the noticed possession workmanIn However, the meeting. unemployment that being present of some management. most Documents had onshifted of probation.the surprising alsoof to earlier since To is management the judgments withhold admittedly workman. the testimony such are had the kind absolutelyindicated workman of of court evidence false that was witness and labour did on Sh.itspeak probation, not fabricated.
was court R.S. 80, UP the normal State Textile writing rule is Corporation present atokind grant in court.
ofVs. areinstatement P.C.He draft andwas ChaturvediI just an with employee helped reported fullhimback asby of (2005) wages was 8,bySCC,
40. considered In after weighing view to be of all the continuation the facts false and fabricated andofcircumstances, the service documents itself.
maythat However, award filed/tendered the latest trend compensation the in lieu is Then once management.
writing again it in down J.K. but I I Synthetics am was aware not Vs. concerned K.P. Agarwal he about was the s. reported as
36. the The well Vashisth, acknowledged
34. order for entire theExecutive terminating credibility background onSecretary the basis Screening his of himself the service of ofthe management. facts Grievances is clearly previous no isdoubt whosuggests judgments. stigmatic hastohimself that It wasin present its failed effect observed case to stand andis said that not the byif
211). Since the meeting Chowkidar. as such. I am I who can not not shown aware say name about be of present any such in the that even reinstatement of management reinstatement and back appropriate is wages.
being replacedare proceedings by separately the compensation. being initiated In M/s against Lords 2007 after a LLR protracted 358, time misconducts person the and Hon'ble energy as I doalleged Supreme consuming not even to remember have Court litigation been has what noticed during committed actually which the previous period the
31.one same the meetingHowever, document. of Thencould termination Thereafter, came has not General leaving denied Statement have both the of having Haryana service been aside above of passed simplicitor CW1 the everreliefs Roadways technical is without attendedbeing but the any of reinstatement Vs. holding reproduced aspectsorder suchRudhanan and is enquiry Singh hereunder absolutely meeting. and considering back as and(2005), The wages for punitive givingthe5 easy entire have Homeopathic Laboratories must by the have said Roshan Vs. Ms. happened. Lal Lissy atNayyar, Unnikunju Being reported senior 2006 IV, workman judgments the management just andsustains has concluded himself, officials i.ethat ultimately Sh.award V.K. he ofany is back point to bewages of time.
told Section that isOfficer becomingIt (Admn.), though herare.
willDr. To be SCC, undergone 591. The administrative Hon'ble isbe a progressive correct Court that dilution. officer, listed Ms. a Aruna it few was Surender factors my Sitesh duty on was Kumar which to help Principal Verma the or award Vs. of back Central AD opportunity documents reference:-
and stigmatic.
(Delhi), proceedings toto 739, the brought As absolutely theworkman such, Hon'ble by the termination necessary to beIn High management heard for Courtofin better service his are defence.
and of rendered Delhi ofjust the has Itdecision falseworkman iscited notand only of the aroundwithout a case 20 quote reinstated,from he the willjudgment:
guide beother denied back wages officials. It is whichthat correct would there bewere due tofabricated him, the Aruna wages could Sitesh, of Principal/Chairman be based. college Someinof 2001. these factors (at & this Sh.are:stage R.D. witness Verma, isAdministration Govt. Industrial judgments of the Tribunal, Supreme officials senior 1981 Court to (1) SCR, andinDelhi me 2001 789, High i.e it Vicewas Court held that to The Principal, concludethere may that be in where and holding workman record. in noorder "Coming any would It enquiry confronted enquiry to stands bearrive "(Sealed back was into atheld wages subjected quite with the the well even original envelope and truth tocharges ano ofthe ifsort explained ofof opportunity the courtEX containing is absolutely matter, WW- thenfinds penalty was that for 1/M6). management itthe violative given register necessary no-fault management to of the was oftoprovisions workman his directed award andback avoided it of to is to
1. Nature Principal,of employmentVersor etc. It (whether is obvious permanent that there or was temporary or short wages, exceptional Incharge suitable the cases a signatures question circumstances in accordancecontaining compensation will be at where with point pages whether law.
should anA1order are to back be 3only iswages of granted initials opened in should reinstatementlieu atand this of not be stage and the awarded full backfully reinstatement. wages or wholly undeserved. term governing daily It wage was body stated basis of etc.) that any trustees. other I view can not would say be placing a onlybe produce I.D. heard, Act as partially examine the anyitwell isfull said (and also other assignatures and ifGrievance principles aCW so, officercase 1 of the whereof of Ms. ispercentage).
shown Committee the natural managementAruna management the justice That Sitesh register). Proceedings has alsoas depends Iusually no-one come shownhave through up can seen upon as putwith be beingtheacondemned competent absolutely facts and present in may be impossible Although
2. Method there whether or of inequitable are various there selection wasand e.g., recent any when judgments specific employment. the legalindustryof the advisor might Hon'ble of have closed Supreme premium Fileon circumstances bean ofwhile the each unwarranted cosigned the tomarking minutes ofroom.
litigative case, record the income Grievance any post. Committee activity of the received (Ld.employer. AR byMeetings for the employee during
3. Length the management management ofon service. is or directed not. It has been very long the downfalse officer unheard Court and therelevant or and granting meeting, and manipulated might management which period be small even pasted has in amount though documents.
inwhat was account severe the of theyalso has of register happened financial compensation were atto directed alternative pageplace toin2produce doldrums admittedly thethepresent employment and ranging Ioriginal or still state the where from in that the on service case.
or Rs. Termination rules business the service ofisthe concerned 10,000/- of thea to However,
4. Time in time.elapsedthe same There after judgment, may his have termination. deviation been. It from is wrong this to rule was also relevant Announced factor in therecord to be itopen in istaken thenote certainly court course ofnot ofcontaining while theawarding day). Imy am back notwages, signatures awarein addition to employeenone 25,000/-, would have ofsuggest thesecontents secured judgments that forof an the employment lay down that reason any else formula there where.
were By the very or guidelines other tone to arrive
30. employees, of recognized Today the service During management and on 01/10/2008 several of itabout course all the factors was and this anyworkman ofmentioned final videotherwise observed where even arguments, is order that thereof.inEXRudhan held MW-
dated to Ibe itwas could 1/M6.
transpired illegal 08/05/08.
Singh not have asVol.
presentthat (supra). been Being wellWhileGrievance as in at unjustified.
the Committee Therefore, any summoned terms byIssue itand is the senior officers to me,(SUJATA there wasKOHLI) no need for me to necessary and at proceedings conditions management no.tenor the It 2 said "In the iswas foramount.
of decidedvery the the held of which senior guide to nature employee such judgment, service against prove thatwas post in of other the the,things, meeting to stated However,and it casethese was plead alleged management there officials. conduct the to implied kind in be that Iworkman J.U. amofcannot he proceedings. the rules that basis was Akhtar Additionalabsolutely documents and Vol.
thein hasbe of not arendered favour onus Istraight Vs. District gainfully termination AsUniversity neverunaware Management & regards towas ofprove the jaclet Sessions went athe employed the workman. order long the formula Judge Non-Academic proceedings exceptional had period from ofnever for M/s of the date of relief awarding his termination----.
through administrative ofabout back me atso wages.
this any
head. stage.
called Presiding
AllIt relevant is wrong It is wrong meeting. Officer toThe suggest considerations to Labour thatCourt-II, suggest resolution Iwill enter the service circumstances Markfed and Agro the time would reported elapsed be on as after the employer.
2006 his
VIII termination
AD However,
(Delhi) was
Karkardooma33, smaller
in
the Kendriya Hon'ble Courts, in comparison, Vidyalya Delhi High been Employees before verdict. produced the More ISSUE No. 1(Relief) Establishment werethat am or by tendered by the management at this stage is minutes produced deposing less Ithe am it management would deposing Committee on falsely bethe a next on falsely. onit motion ground never its date, ownVol.
only saw addressedofnor light Isympathy. a they am photocopy toof awere day.
the very called I of discretion uponof the by of On 'What is alternative employment?, while it Delhi. was the view earlier that full Sanghtan Court back Tribunal. has wages Full heldback Vs. responsible am S.C. could that not being in be wages Sharma, awarded.
supporting taken such person would 2005 on record cases, beany and LLR theHowever, normal one. father 275, and Irule being compensation amif of while only the andEX senior the denying workman CW1/X1.
emphasising cannot party IPS has thatbeen beobjecting less thatto than intheita
35. must only
37. theaestablish Grievance The workman regular entireCommittee the and ordocuments his A/R Icircumstances substantial Officer. the REINSTATEMENT/BACKWAGES false have wereIand document seen am i.e produced Ex.
no gainful the not doubt WW1/M2, necessitating of aware but Ld. employment statementthe not ARthe management.
shown as Ex.
thefor to MW1/1, original. departure". would to whether workman bebedated Ex.
Matter also considered MW1/2 could wastoagain & have deny 3, short back reliefwages term of back heemployment wouldisotherwise wages at the or discretion was appointed be entitled of to. without the court, it was following held thatthe it wasproperfor claimant At this servicestagewas 1this terminated register orand is directed about I to the be back wages The principle to the20.4.01 was emphatically workman, at page it has of this restated been register held Gujarat in now, in NorthSteel state Tubes Est KarnatkaLtd. Vs. procedure theEx.
very adjourned WW1/M4, well employee etc.,called The rule ofthatfor to awardproduction Ex.
reasons sealed show upon MW1/4, ofback that civilsame full the back of management therefor. he in law also Ex.
an was original wages WW1/M5, envelope. that not not minutes could to Grievance gainfully containing a contract produce Ex.not of WW1/M6, be employed of my the personalproper.
theGrievance Committee same after signatures Ex. hisMW1/5 and service cannot Committee.
there termination.to was Ex.
be
38. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, workman is Gujarat Road SteelState InTrasporation U.P. Tubes Meeting any Mazdoor XXXXxx Vs. Brassware may where. M. have Sabha byI Ld. Nagangauda, amtaken Corporation AR(AIR not for place, 1980, awareworkman.
2007Vs. I Udai canSC of LLR 1896), not any Narain 340 say, such inIthat the even Pandey, following self 2006 The initial specifically gross negligence Management MW1/12. onus enforced, andwas has then most therefore, innot ondoes handling ofthe the not next now limit documents this date shifted the aspect.
produced to of the the jurisdiction workman.
ButManagement management since of the original the documents labour register clearly courts.
in question reflect It containing was that i.e Nil.
statement. Opportunity present Thenor said given".
aware. statement is being mayEX words:
employment awarded which would with reinstatement fetchcontinuity any earning ofthat to the and service employee, with 50% including back LLR alwaysIt 214,came the understood Hon'ble to havebe that Supreme reiterated written when time namesanCourt and order of considered again any of retrenchment members, various grant what of previous reinstatement hascan been judgments declared and CW1/Y1. I was Sr. Administrative Officer at proceedings minutes it was trying "Traveling agricultural of meeting pursuitshappened to overlevelwould serious theand tosame bebe showing charges directly ground included the of inrelevant bymisconduct attendance going 'gainful toemployment'.
theagainst through ofentiretheevery the members controversy workman precedent of andthe is rendered back 'illegal',wagesthe by was sameit I asay the and ismatterwhen relevant concluded supposed of I was time discretion to not that be i.e there voidin there of the the in year wasthe labour ab-initio meeting.2001
no and court and binding hence, now and It isI precedent that the inoperative; order that of the wages.
supererogatory and we Thus, from wrong amthe tohold retired. suggest position the that rule Iisam of directed reinstatement simple deposing that falsely.
and the discretion back wages I to deny being the
33. since meeting.
insteadIn reinstatement the result labour theyof is contrast that The holding were court or the and said to stated pare should a this, full employee register detailed down to document back show be was the would enquiry the wages very Ex.
quantum application be therein basis CW1/X should deemed to ofof of beand back mind to termination whichretained always be giving wages on isthis the be continuing an on opportunity order, record alleged is granted point.absent in it till was minutesfurther when save (Hindustan service toalso the ofa for and (At this stage have seen the statement on page already Ld. AR for management Sh.
39. exceptional automatic Reference reasons."
consequence is answered accordingly. Award of a retrenchment being to is passed.
found illegal, Copy we of have thecomeawarda termination therefore, the is grantRajeev EXCW1/Y1 held to of be Dayal the illegal.
relief seeks and It it waspermission may of reinstatementheldbe so that that a and crossit persons full mayexamine back is have notwages entitled to alongwith get Motors incumbent orders.
workman the alleged Ltd.
ThistouponVs.
be court Grievance Tapan heard, the thenmanagement the Kumar directed management Committee Sh. reported to R.S. have Meeting came as Vashisth, come up(2002 held upwith on 6 the Secretary with the 20/04/01 SCC, termination 41;
proceedings to at be Indian examined 10.30 orderon am long way Thento this been inaappropriate witness.
position where Mohanlal in my Allowed.
hand Vs. Bharat but award of ) still fulldo Electronics, not back wages know 1981 inhas what (3)30 actually SCC, become 215, the all be something sent benefits toonly of because continuous itgovernment would service be would for lawful be publication to do automatic. so. Itwithin was also days from acknowledged the Railway Construction connection Co.this XXXXXXX Vs. meeting Ajay by Sh. KumarwasRajeev reported held. Dayal, It is asLd. (2003) correct AR 4 SCC, 579; their as simply shows rare.
principleCW1. ownoftried Sh. andto Vashisth, R.S. reinstatement since make ititwith would look Secretary full like have back termination as been being the wages one best was simplicitor of the again piece members reiterated of on evidence account present of although in in it that ever In since Hindustan for that management I Kendriya Tin understand Works Vidalaya English Vs. Its very Sangthan employees well. (supra), Some reported body the as onus 1979 to (2) prove SCC M.P.receiptState ofElectricity the award. Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141; The concept must Ihave know ofprobation.
back Roshangoes approached wages Lal alongwith claimant, me for workman assistance reinstatement whofora since was
32. the noticed possession workmanHowever, meeting. unemployment that being of some management. moston Documents had shifted of the surprisingof to earlier To management the judgments withhold is workman.the testimony such are hadkind absolutelyindicated of of court evidence false that witness and labour did Sh.itspeak not fabricated.
was court R.S. 80, UP the normal State Textile writingrule is Corporation present atokind grant in court.
ofVs. areinstatement P.C.He draft andwas I just Chaturvedi an with employee helped reported fullhimback asby of (2005) wages was 8,bySCC,
40. considered In after weighing view to be of all the continuation the facts false and fabricated andofcircumstances, the service documents itself.
maythat However, award filed/tendered the latest trend compensation the in lieu is Then once management.
writing again it in down J.K. but I I Synthetics am was aware not Vs.concerned K.P. Agarwal he about wasthe s. reported as
36. wellThe Vashisth, acknowledged
34. for entire the Executive credibility background onSecretary the basis Screening of himself the ofofthe management.
facts Grievances previousclearly whosuggests is judgments. hastohimself that It was present failed observed case to stand is said thethat not byif
211). Since the meeting Chowkidar. as such. I am I who can not not shown aware say name about be of present any such in that even reinstatement of management reinstatement and back appropriate is wages.
being replacedare proceedings by separately the compensation. being initiated In M/s againstLords 2007 after a LLR protracted 358, time misconducts person the and Hon'ble energy as I doalleged Supreme consuming not even to remember have Court litigation been has what noticed during committed actually which the previous period the
31.one the Then meetingHowever, document. of termination Thereafter, came has General leaving deniedStatement both the of having Haryana service aside above of simplicitor CW1 the everreliefs Roadways technical is attended beingbut any of reinstatement Vs. reproduced the aspectsorder suchRudhan and is Singh hereunder absolutely meeting. and considering back as (2005), The wages for punitive the5 easy entire have Homeopathic Laboratories must by the have said Roshan Vs. Ms. happened.Lal Lissy atNayyar,Unnikunju Being reported senior 2006 IV, workman judgments the management just andsustains has concluded himself, officials i.ethat ultimately Sh.award V.K. he ofanyis back point to bewages of time.
told Section that isOfficer becomingIt (Admn.), though herare.
willDr. To be SCC, 591. The administrative Hon'ble isbecorrect Court that officer, listed Ms. a Aruna it few was factors my duty on which to help the or award of back undergone AD documents reference:-
and (Delhi), proceedings a progressive stigmatic. to 739, brought As absolutely thesuch, dilution.
Hon'ble by the termination necessary High managementIn for CourtofSitesh Surender better service are was Kumar and of rendered Delhi Principal ofjust the hasVerma decision falseworkman cited andVs. of Central the aroundwithout case20 quote reinstated,from he the will judgment:
guide beother denied back wages officials. It is whichthat correct would there bewere due tofabricated him, the Aruna wages could Sitesh, of Principal/Chairman be based. college Someinof 2001. these factors (at & this are:stage Sh. R.D. witness Verma, isAdministration Govt. Industrial judgments of the Tribunal, Supreme officials senior 1981 Court to (1) SCR, andinDelhi me 2001 789,High i.e it Vicewas Court held that to The Principal, concludethere may that be in and"Coming holding workman record. in orderanystands would It confronted enquiry to arrive "(Sealed back be into at the wages subjected quite with the well even original envelope truth tocharges ofthe a ifsort explained the ofof courtEX containing is absolutely matter, WW- thenfinds penalty that for 1/M6).
management itthe violativeregister necessary no-fault management of was oftoprovisions his directed award andback avoided it of to is to
1. Nature Principal, of Versor employment etc. It (whether is obvious permanent that there or was temporary or short wages, exceptional Incharge suitable the cases a signatures question circumstances in accordancecontaining compensation will be at where with point pages whether law.
should anA1orderare to back be 3only iswages of granted initials opened in should reinstatementlieu atand this of not be stage and the awarded full backfully reinstatement. wages or wholly undeserved. term governing daily It wage was body stated basis of etc.) that any trustees. other I view can not would say be placing a onlyproduce I.D. Act as partially examine thewell any fulland said (and other assignatures ifGrievance principles CW so, the officer 1 of of of Ms. ispercentage).
shown Committee the natural Aruna the management justice That Sitesh register). Proceedings alsoas depends Iusually no-one shownhave through can put seen upon as be being acondemned the competent facts and present in may be impossible Although
2. Method there whether or of inequitable are various there selection wasand e.g., recent any when judgments specific employment. the legalindustryof the advisor might Hon'ble of have closed Supreme premium Fileon circumstances bean ofwhile the each unwarranted cosigned the tomarking minutes ofroom.
litigative case, record the income Grievance any post. Committee activity of the received (Ld.employer. AR byMeetings for the employee during
3.andLength the management ofon management service. is or directed not. It has been very long the downofficer unheard Court or and therelevant granting meeting,might management which period small even pasted be has inamount though inwhat was account severe the of theyalso has of register happened financial atto directed alternative compensation were place page toin2produce doldrums admittedly thethepresent employment and ranging Ioriginal or still state the where from in that the on service case.
or the Rs. Termination rules business ofisthe concerned 10,000/- service of thea to However,
4. Time in time.
elapsedthe same
There
after judgment,
may
his have
termination. deviation
been. It from
is wrong this to rule was also
relevant Announced factor in therecord to be itopen in istaken thenote certainly court course ofnot ofcontaining while theawarding day). Imy am back notwages, signatures awarein addition to employeenone 25,000/-, would have ofsuggest thesecontentssecured judgments that forof an the employment lay down that reason any else formula there where.
were By the very or guidelines other tone to arrive employees, of recognized Today the service several management and on 01/10/2008 of itabout all the factors was and this anyworkman videotherwise observed mentioned where even is order that thereof.inEXRudhan held MW-
dated to Ibe was could 1/M6.
illegal 08/05/08. Singh not have asVol.
present (supra).
been Being wellWhile as in any at unjustified.
the terms Therefore, summoned byIssue itand is the senior officers to me,(SUJATA there wasKOHLI) no need for me to necessary and at conditions management no.tenor the It 2 said "In the iswas foramount.
of decidedvery the the held of senior guide to nature employee such judgment, service against prove thatpost in of other the the However, ,things, meeting and it to casethese was plead alleged management there officials.
conduct
the
implied
kind
in that
Iworkman J.U. amofcannot he proceedings.
rules that was Akhtar Additionalabsolutely documents and Vol.
thein hasbe of not arendered favour onus As Istraight Vs. District gainfully University neverunaware Management & regards towas ofprove the jaclet Sessions went athe employed the workman. long the formula Judge Non-Academic of from proceedings exceptional period for M/sof the date of relief awarding his termination----.
through administrative ofabout back me atso wages.
this any
head. stage.
called Presiding
AllIt relevant is wrong It is wrong meeting. Officer toThe suggest considerations to Labour thatCourt-II, suggest resolution Iwill enter the service circumstances Markfed and Agro the time would reported elapsed be on as after the employer.
2006 his
VIII termination
AD However,
(Delhi) was
Karkardooma33, smaller
in
the Kendriya Hon'ble Courts, in comparison, Vidyalya Delhi High Employees before verdict. the More ISSUE No. 1(Relief) Establishment werethat am or tendered by the management at this stage is minutes produced deposing less I am it would deposing Committee on falsely bethe a next on falsely. it motion ground never date, Vol.
only saw addressedof light Isympathy.
a am photocopy toof a theday.
very I of
discretion of the of
On 'What is alternative employment?, while it Delhi. was the view earlier that
full
Sanghtan Court back Tribunal. has wages Full heldback Vs. responsible am S.C. could that not being in be wages Sharma, awarded.
supporting taken such person would 2005 on record cases, beany and LLR theHowever, normal one. father 275, and Irule being compensation amif of while only the andEX senior the denying workman party CW1/X1.
emphasising cannot IPS has thatbeen beobjecting less thatto than intheita
35. must only
37. Grievance The aestablish regular entireCommittee the and documents have were Icircumstances substantial Officer. the REINSTATEMENT/BACKWAGES false I i.e document seen amproduced Ex.
gainful the notWW1/M2, necessitating of aware butmanagement. employment statementthe not the shown as Ex.
the to MW1/1, original. departure". would to be whether bedated Ex.
Matter considered MW1/2 wastoagain & 3, deny short back reliefwages term of back heemployment wouldisotherwise wages at the or discretion was appointed be entitled of to. without the court, it was following held thatthe it was properfor claimant 20.4.01At this service at stagewas page 1this of terminated register this register orand is directed about I to the state be back wages The principle to the workman, was emphatically it has been restated heldin now,Gujarat in NorthSteel Tubes Est KarnatkaLtd. Vs. procedure theEx.
adjourned WW1/M4, employee etc., The rule ofthatfor to awardproduction Ex.
reasons sealed show MW1/4, ofback that civilsame full back of therefor. he in law also Ex.
an was original wages WW1/M5, envelope. that not not minutes could Grievance gainfully containing a contract Ex.not of WW1/M6, be employed of my the personalproper.
Grievance Committee after signatures Ex. hisMW1/5 service cannot Committee.
termination.to Ex.be
38. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, workman is Gujarat Road SteelState InTrasporation U.P. Tubes Meeting any Mazdoor XXXXxx Vs. Brassware may where. M. have Sabha byI Ld. Nagangauda, amtaken Corporation AR(AIR not for place, 1980, awareworkman.
2007Vs. I Udai canSC of LLR 1896), not any Narain340 say, such inIthat the even Pandey, following self 2006 The initial specifically Management MW1/12. onus enforced, andwas has then mostnottherefore, ondoes ofthe the not next now limit documents date shifted theproduced to the jurisdiction of theManagementworkman.
management of the the original register labour clearly courts.
reflect It containing was that Nil.
statement. Opportunity present Thenorsaid given".
aware. statement is being mayEX words:
employment awarded which would with reinstatement fetchcontinuity any earning ofthat to the and service employee,with 50% including back LLR alwaysIt 214,came the understood Hon'ble to havebe that Supreme reiterated written when time namesanCourt and order of considered again any of retrenchment members, various grant what of previous reinstatement hascan been judgments declared and CW1/Y1. I was Sr. Administrative Officer at minutes it was trying "Traveling agricultural of meeting pursuitsto overlevelwould serious theandsame be showing charges ground included the of by inthe misconduct attendance going 'gainful throughagainst of theevery employment'. the membersworkman precedent of andthe is rendered back 'illegal',wagesthe by was sameit I asay the and is when matterrelevant concluded supposed of I was time discretion to not that be i.e there voidin there of the in year wasthe labour ab-initio meeting.2001
no and court and binding hence, now and It isI precedent that the inoperative; order that of the wages.
supererogatory and wetohold the that rule Iisam simple that falsely.the discretion to deny Thus, from wrong amthearetired. suggest position of directed reinstatement deposing and back wages I being the
33.
the meeting. instead result In labour of is contrast reinstatement that The holding court or the and said to parethis, should employee register full detailed downdocument back show was the would enquiry wages Ex.
quantum application be therein CW1/X should deemed to ofof beand which back mind to retained always be giving wages on isthis the be continuing an on isopportunity record alleged granted absent point. in till minutes further when save (Hindustan service to and the ofa for (At this stage have seen the statement on page already Ld. AR for management Sh.
39. exceptional automatic Reference reasons."
consequence is answered accordingly. Award of a retrenchment being to is passed.
found illegal, Copy we of have thecomeawarda termination therefore, the is Rajeev EXCW1/Y1 held to be Dayalillegal. seeks and It it waspermission may heldbe so that that a crossit persons mayexamine is have not entitled to get Motors orders.
workman the alleged Ltd.
Thistogrant Vs. be court Grievance of Tapan heard, the the then relief Kumar directed of reinstatement management Committee Sh.reported R.S.came Meeting as Vashisth, and up(2002 held full with on back 6 SCC, Secretary the 20/04/01 wages termination to at 41;
be alongwith Indian examined 10.30 order am long way Then to in a this witness.
been position Mohanlal in where myVs. Allowed.
hand award Bharat but of )Electronics, still fulldoback not know wages 1981 inhas what (3) actually SCC, become 215, all be something sent to benefits only of appropriate because continuous itgovernment would service be would forbepublication lawful to do automatic. so. Itwithin was also days from the 30 acknowledged the Railway Construction connection Co.this XXXXXXX Vs. meeting Ajay by Sh. KumarwasRajeev reported held. Dayal, It is asLd. (2003) correct AR 4 SCC, 579; as simply shows rare.
principleCW1. oftried Sh. R.S. to Vashisth, reinstatement make itwith look Secretary full like back termination as being was wages one simplicitor of thereiterated again members on accountpresent of although in it that ever In since Hindustan for that management I Kendriya Tinunderstand Works Vidalaya English Vs. Its very Sangthan employees well. (supra), Some reported body the as onus 1979 to (2) prove SCC M.P.receiptState ofElectricity the award. Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141; The concept must Ihave know ofprobation.
back Roshangoes approached wages Lal alongwith claimant, me for workman assistance reinstatement whofora since was
32. the noticed workmanHowever, meeting. unemployment that being some moston Documents had of shifted the surprisingof to earlier is management the judgments workman.the testimony are had absolutelyindicated of court false that witness and labour Sh.itcourt fabricated.
was R.S. 80, UP the normal State Textile writingrule is Corporation present atokind grant in court.
ofVs. areinstatement P.C.He draft andwas I just Chaturvedi an with employee helped reported fullhimbackasby of (2005) wages was 8,bySCC,
40. considered In after weighing view to be of all the continuation the facts false and fabricated andofcircumstances, the service documents itself.
maythat However, award filed/tendered the latest trend compensation the in lieu is Then once management.
writing
again it
in down
J.K. but I I
Synthetics am was aware not Vs.concerned K.P. Agarwal he about was the s. reported as
36. Vashisth, The entire acknowledged
34. Executive background onSecretary the basisScreening ofofthefactsGrievances previousclearly whosuggests is judgments. hastohimself that It was present failed observed case to stand is said thethat not byif
211). Since the meeting Chowkidar. as himself such. I am I who can not not shown aware say name about be of present any such in that even reinstatement of management reinstatement and back appropriate is wages.
being replacedare proceedings by separately the compensation. being initiated In M/s againstLords 2007 after a LLR protracted 358, time misconducts person the and Hon'ble energy as I doalleged Supreme consuming not even to remember have Court litigation been has what noticed during committed actually which the previous period the the Then one meeting document.
of termination Thereafter, came has General deniedStatement both theof having Haryana service above of simplicitor CW1 everreliefs Roadways is attended beingbut any of reinstatement Vs. reproduced the order suchRudhan is Singh hereunder absolutely meeting. and back as The wages(2005), for punitive easy entire have 5 Homeopathic Laboratories must by the have said Roshan Vs. Ms. happened.Lal Lissy atNayyar,Unnikunju Being reported senior 2006 IV, workman judgments the management just andsustains has concluded himself, officials i.ethat ultimately Sh.award V.K. he ofanyis back point to bewages of time.
told Section that isOfficer It (Admn.), becoming though herare.
willDr. To be SCC, 591. The administrative Hon'ble is correct Court that officer, listed Ms. a Aruna it few was factors my duty on which to help the or award of back undergone AD reference:-
and (Delhi), proceedings a progressive stigmatic. 739, brought Asthesuch, dilution.
Hon'ble by the termination High managementIn CourtofSitesh Surender service are was Kumar of rendered Delhi ofPrincipal the hasVerma falseworkman cited andVs. Central around without 20 quote reinstated,from he the will judgment:
guide beotherdenied back wages officials. It is whichthat correct would there bewere due tofabricated him, the Aruna wages could Sitesh, of Principal/Chairman be based. collegeSomeinof 2001. these factors (at & this are:stage Sh. R.D. witness Verma, isAdministration Govt. Industrial judgments of the Tribunal, Supreme officials senior 1981 Court to (1) SCR, andinDelhi me 2001 789,High i.e it Vicewas Court held that to The Principal, concludethere may that be in holding workman record."Coming anystands would It confronted enquiry to be"(Sealed back quiteintowell wages subjected with the even original envelope tocharges a ifsort explained ofof thecontaining iscourtEX absolutelyWW- thenfinds penalty that for 1/M6).
itthe violativeregister necessary no-fault management ofoftoprovisions award his andback avoided it of is to
1. Nature Principal, of Versor employment etc. It (whether is obvious permanent that there or was temporary or short wages, exceptional Incharge suitable the cases a signatures question circumstances in accordancecontaining compensationwill be at where with point pages whether law.
should anA1orderare to back be 3only iswages of granted initials opened in should reinstatementlieu atand this of not be stage and the awarded full backfully reinstatement. wages or wholly undeserved. term governing daily It wage was body stated basis of etc.) that any trustees. other I view can not would say be placing a onlyI.D. Act as partially examine anywell fulland (and other assignatures principles CW ifofficer so, the 1 of of of Ms. ispercentage).
shown the natural Aruna the management justice That Sitesh register). alsoas depends Iusually no-one shownhaveupon can seen as put be beingthecondemned facts and present in may be impossible Although
2. Method there whether or of inequitable are various there selection wasand e.g., recent any when judgments specific employment. the legalindustryof the advisor might Hon'ble of have closed Supreme premium Fileon circumstances bean ofwhile the each unwarranted cosigned the tomarking minutes ofroom.
litigative case, record the income Grievance any post. Committee activity of the received (Ld.employer. AR byMeetings for the employee during
3.andLength the management ofon management service. is or directed not. It has been very long the downunheard therelevant Court or might granting meeting, which period even pasted be small has inamount though inwhat account severe the of theyhas of register happened financial atto alternative compensation were place page doldrums admittedly thepresent in2employment the and ranging Ioriginal or still state where from in that case.
theoron the Rs. Termination business concerned 10,000/- service isthe a to However,
4. Time in time. the elapsed same There after judgment, may his have termination. deviation been. It from is wrong this to rule wasof also relevant Announced factor in therecord to be it in istaken open thenote certainly court course ofnot ofcontaining while theawarding day). Imy am back notwages, signaturesawarein addition to employeenone 25,000/-, would have ofsuggest secured thesecontents judgments that forof anthe employment lay down that reason any else formula there where.
were By the very or guidelines other tone to arrive the of recognized Today service and on 01/10/2008 several management of itabout the factors was andanyworkman observed mentioned whereotherwise even is that thereof.inEXRudhan held MW-
to Ibe was could 1/M6.
illegal Singh not have asVol.
present wellBeing (supra).
been as
in at
unjustified. Therefore, any summoned byIssue it theis senior officers to me,(SUJATA there wasKOHLI) no need for me to necessary and at management no.tenor the It 2 said "In the iswas foramount.
of decidedvery the the held senior guide to nature employee such judgment, against prove thatpost in of other the the However, ,things, meeting it to casethese was plead alleged management there officials.
the
implied
kind
in that
Iworkman J.U. amofcannot he proceedings.
that was Akhtar absolutely Additional documents and Vol.
thein hasbe not arendered Istraight Vs. District favour onus As gainfully neverunaware Management & regards towas ofprove the jaclet Sessions went athe employed the workman. long formula theJudge of from proceedings exceptional period for M/sof the date of relief awarding his termination----.
through administrative ofabout back me atso wages.
this any
head. stage.
called Presiding
AllIt relevant is wrong It is wrong meeting. Officer toThesuggest to considerations Labour thatCourt-II, suggest resolution Iwill enter the service circumstances Markfed and Agro the time would reported elapsed be on as after the employer.
2006 his
VIII termination
AD However,
(Delhi) was
33,
Karkardooma smaller
in
the Kendriya Hon'ble Courts, in comparison, Vidyalya Delhi High before verdict. the More ISSUE No. 1(Relief) Establishment that am or deposing less I am it would deposing Committee falsely be a on falsely. it motion tendered by the management at this stage is ground never Vol.
saw addressedof light Isympathy. am toof a theday.
very I
discretion of the
On 'What is alternative employment?, while it Delhi. was the view earlier that
full
Sanghtan Court back Tribunal. has wages Full heldback Vs. responsible am S.C. could that not being in be wages Sharma, awarded.
supporting taken such person would 2005 on record cases, beany and LLR theHowever, normal one. father 275, and Irule being compensation amif of while only the andEX senior the denying workman party CW1/X1.
emphasising cannot IPS has thatbeen beobjecting less thatto than intheita
35. must only
37. The aestablish regular entire the and REINSTATEMENT/BACKWAGES documents Icircumstances substantial Officer. the false have document I i.e seen am Ex.
gainful the notWW1/M2, necessitating of aware employment statementthe the management.
shown asdeparture".
Ex. wouldto MW1/1, to be whether bedated Ex. MW1/2 considered & 3, to deny short back reliefwages term of back heemployment wouldisotherwise wages at the or discretion was appointed be entitled of to.
the court,without it wasfollowing held thatthe it was properfor claimant 20.4.01At this service at stagewas page 1this of terminated register this register orand is directed about I to the state be back wages The principle to the workman, was emphatically it has been restated heldin now, Gujarat in NorthSteel Tubes Est KarnatkaLtd. Vs. procedure theEx. WW1/M4, employee etc., The rule ofthat to award Ex.
reasons sealed show MW1/4, ofback that civilsame fullhe in law alsoback therefor.Ex.
an was wages WW1/M5, envelope. that not not could Grievance gainfully containing a contract Ex.not WW1/M6, be employed of my proper.
Committee personal after signatures Ex. hisMW1/5 service cannottermination.to Ex.be
38. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, workman is Gujarat Road SteelState InTrasporation U.P. Tubes Meeting any Mazdoor XXXXxx Vs. Brassware may where. M. have Sabha byI Ld. Nagangauda, amtaken Corporation AR(AIR not for place, 1980, awareworkman.
2007Vs. I Udai canSC ofLLR 1896), not any Narain340 say, such inIthat the even Pandey, following self 2006 The initial specifically MW1/12. andwas onus enforced, has mostnottherefore, does of present the not now limit documents shifted the to the jurisdiction of theManagementworkman.of the management clearly labour courts. It reflect that was Nil.
statement. OpportunityThenorsaid given".
aware. statement is being mayEX words:
employment awarded which would with reinstatement fetchcontinuity any earning ofthat to the and service employee,with 50% including back LLR alwaysIt 214,came the understood Hon'ble to havebe that Supreme reiterated written when time namesanCourt and order of considered again any of retrenchment members, various grant what of previous reinstatement hascan been judgments declared and CW1/Y1. I was Sr. Administrative Officer at it was agricultural trying "Traveling pursuitsto overlevelwould serious the same be charges ground included of misconduct by inthe going 'gainful againstevery through employment'. the workman precedentand is rendered back 'illegal',wagesthe by was sameit I asay the and is when matterrelevant concluded supposed of I was time discretion to not that be i.e there voidin there of the inyear wasthe labour ab-initio meeting.
2001
no
and and
binding
courthence, now and It isI precedent that the inoperative; order that of the wages.
supererogatory and wetohold the that rule Iisam simple that falsely.
the discretion to deny Thus, from wrong amthearetired. suggest position of reinstatement deposing and back wages I beingto the
33.
the instead result In reinstatement labour of is contrast that holding court or the and to parethis, should full employee detailed downdocument back show the would enquiry wages Ex.
quantum application be therein CW1/X should deemed ofof and which always back mind to be givingisthis wages on the continuingan opportunity alleged be ispoint.
granted absent in minutes whenand save (Hindustan service the ofa for (At this stage have seen the statement on page already Ld. AR for management Sh.
39. exceptional automatic Reference reasons."
consequence is answered accordingly. Award of a retrenchment being to is passed.
found illegal, Copy we of have thecomeawarda termination therefore, is thetogrant Rajeev EXCW1/Y1 held to of be Dayal the theillegal.
relief seeks and It it waspermission may of reinstatementheldbe so that that a and cross it persons mayexamine full 20/04/01 back is have not wages entitled to alongwith get Motors workman the alleged Ltd. Vs. be heard, Grievance Tapan Kumar management Committee reported Meeting cameas up(2002 held with on 6 SCC, the terminationat41;10.30 Indian order am long way Then to in a this witness.
been position Mohanlal in where myVs. Allowed.
hand award Bharat but of )Electronics, stillfulldoback not know wages 1981 inhas what (3) actually SCC, become 215, all be something sent to benefits only of appropriate because continuous itgovernment would service be would forbepublication lawful to do automatic. so. Itwithin was also days from the 30 acknowledged the Railway Construction connection Co.this XXXXXXX Vs. meeting Ajay by Sh. KumarwasRajeev reported held. Dayal,It isasLd. (2003) correct AR 4 SCC, 579; simply shows Sh. rare.
principle oftried R.S. to Vashisth, reinstatement make itwith look Secretary full like back termination as being was wages one simplicitor of thereiterated again members on accountpresent of although in it that ever In since Hindustan for that management I Kendriya Tinunderstand Works Vidalaya English Vs. Its very Sangthan employees well. Some (supra), reported body the as onus 1979 to (2) prove SCC M.P.receiptState ofElectricity the award. Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141;
was The
noticed concept
that must
some Ihave
know
ofprobation.
back of the Roshangoes approached wages earlier Lal alongwith judgments claimant, me for had workman assistance reinstatement indicated whofora since that labouritcourt was workman the meeting. unemployment being had on Documents shifted of to management the workman. are absolutely false and fabricated. 80, UP the normal State Textile writingrule is Corporation present atokind grant in court.
ofVs. areinstatement P.C.He draft andwas I just Chaturvedi anwith fullhimback employee helped reported asby of (2005) wages was 8,bySCC,
40. considered In after weighing view to be of all the continuation the facts false and fabricated andofcircumstances, the service documents itself.
maythat However, award filed/tendered the latest trend compensation the in lieu is Then once management.
writing
again it
in down
J.K. but I I
Synthetics am was aware not Vs.concerned K.P. he about Agarwal was the s. reported as
36. The entireonSecretary acknowledged
34. background the basis himself ofofthefacts previousclearly suggests is judgments. to that It was presentobserved case is said thethat notif
211). Since the meeting Chowkidar. as such. I am I who can not not shown aware say name be about of present any such in that even reinstatement of management reinstatement and back appropriate is wages.
being replacedare proceedings by separately the compensation. being initiated In M/s againstLords 2007 after a LLR protracted 358, time misconducts person the and Hon'ble energy as I doalleged Supreme consuming not even to remember have Court litigation been has what noticed during committed actually which the previous period the one meeting of Then termination Thereafter, came has General denied both theof having Haryana service above simplicitor everreliefs Roadways attended but any of reinstatement Vs. the Rudhan order such is meeting. and Singh absolutely back as The(2005), wages punitive entire have 5 Homeopathic Laboratories must by the have said Roshan Vs. Ms. happened.Lal Lissy Unnikunju atNayyar, Being reported senior 2006 IV, workman judgments the management just andsustains has concluded himself, officials i.ethat ultimately Sh.award V.K. he ofanyis back point to bewages of time.
told Section that isOfficer It (Admn.), becoming though herare.
willDr. To be SCC, 591. The administrative Hon'ble is correct Court that officer, listed Ms. a Aruna it few was factors my duty on which to help the or award of back undergone AD and (Delhi), proceedings a progressive stigmatic. 739, brought Asthesuch, dilution.
Hon'ble by the termination High managementIn ofSitesh Surender Court service are was Kumar of rendered Delhi ofPrincipal the hasVerma falseworkman cited andVs. Central around without 20 quote reinstated,from he the will judgment:
guide beotherdenied back wages officials. It is whichthat correct wouldthere bewere due tofabricated him, the Aruna wages could Sitesh, of Principal/Chairman be based. collegeSomeinof 2001. these factors (at & this are:stage Sh. R.D. witness Verma, isAdministration Govt. Industrial judgments of the Tribunal, Supreme officials senior 1981 Court to (1) SCR, andinDelhi me 2001 789, High i.e it was Vice Court held that to The Principal, concludethere may that be in holding workman record."Coming anystands would It confronted enquiry to back be intowell wages subjected quite with theeven original tocharges a ifsort explained theis ofof EX absolutely court WW-
thenfinds penalty that it1/M6).
for violative necessary no-fault management ofoftoprovisions award his andback avoided it of is to
1. Nature Principal, of Versor employment etc. It (whether is obvious permanent that there or was temporary or short wages, exceptional Incharge suitable the cases a signatures question circumstances in accordance compensationwill be at where with point whether law.
should anAorder are back be only ofwages granted initials reinstatementlieuand in should not be the andawarded of reinstatement. full backfully wages or wholly undeserved. term governing daily It wage was body stated basis of etc.) that any trustees. other I view can not would say be placing a onlyI.D. Act as partially examine anywell fullassignatures (and other principles ifofficer of of Ms. so, theof percentage).
the natural Aruna management justice That Sitesh as depends also usually no-one shown can upon as put be beingthecondemned facts and present in may be impossible Although
2. Method there whether or of inequitable are various there selection wasand e.g., recent any when judgments specific employment. the industry legal of the advisor might Hon'ble of have closed Supreme premium Fileon circumstances bean ofwhile unwarranted cosigned the each tomarking litigative case, record the income any room. post. received activity of the (Ld. byAR employer. for the employee during
3.andLength the management of service. management is or directed not. to It has place been thepresent very original long on the downunheard therelevant Court or might granting meeting, which period be on small even has inamount though what account severe of theyhas of happened financialalternative compensation were doldrums admittedly in employment the ranging or still where from in case.
theor the Rs. Termination business concerned 10,000/- service isthe a to However,
4. Time in time. the elapsed same There after judgment, may his have termination. deviation been. It from is wrong this to rule wasof also relevant Announced factor in therecord to be open incourt taken thenote course of while of theawardingday). I am back notwages, awarein addition to employeenone 25,000/-, would have ofsuggest secured thesecontents judgments that forof anthe employment lay down that reason any else formula there where.
were By the very or guidelines other tone to arrive of recognized Today the service several management and on 01/10/2008 of itabout the factors was and workman observed mentioned even is that otherwise inEXRudhan held MW-
to could 1/M6.
be illegal haveasVol.
Singh wellBeing (supra). been assummoned at unjustified. Therefore, byIssue it theis senior officers to me,(SUJATA there wasKOHLI) no need for me to necessary and at management no.tenor the It 2 said "In the iswas foramount.
of decidedvery the the held senior guide to nature employee judgment, against prove thatpost in of other the the,things, it to case However, these was plead alleged management there officials.
the
implied
kind
in that
J.U.
workmanofcannot he andwas Akhtar Additional proceedings.
that documents Vol.
theinbe has notarendered favour onus As Istraight Vs. District gainfully neverManagement & regards towas ofprove the jaclet Sessions went atheemployed the workman. long formula theJudge of from proceedings exceptional period for M/sof the date of relief awarding his termination----.
through administrative of back mewages.
at anyhead.stage. Presiding AllIt relevant is wrong It is wrongOfficer to suggest toLabour considerations thatCourt-II, suggest Iwill enter the service circumstances Markfed and Agro the time would reported elapsed be on as after his the employer. 2006 VIII termination AD However, (Delhi) was Karkardooma33, smaller in the Kendriya Hon'ble Courts, in comparison, Vidyalya Delhi High before verdict. the More ISSUE No. 1(Relief) Establishment that am or deposing less I am it woulddeposing Committee falsely be a on falsely. it motion ground never Vol.
sawof addressed light I sympathy. am toof a day.
the very I discretion of the On 'What is alternative employment?, while it Delhi. was the view earlier that full Sanghtan Court back Tribunal. has wages Full heldback Vs. responsible am S.C. could that notin be wages Sharma,such awarded.
person would supporting 2005beany cases, and LLR theHowever, normal one. father 275, Irule compensation amif of while andonly the senior the denying workman emphasising cannot party IPS hasthatbeen beobjecting less thatto than intheita
35. must only
37. The aestablish regular entire the and documents circumstances substantial Officer. the REINSTATEMENT/BACKWAGES false document I i.e amEx.
gainful notWW1/M2, necessitating of aware employment the the management.asdeparture".
Ex. would to whether MW1/1, Ex. MW1/2 be considered & 3, to deny short back reliefwages term of back heemployment wouldisotherwise wages at the or discretion was appointed be entitled of to. without the court, it wasfollowing held thatthe it wasproper for claimant At this servicestagewas thisterminated register is directed or abouttothe be back wages The principle to the workman, was emphatically it has been restated Gujarat heldin now, in NorthSteel Tubes Est Karnatka Ltd. Vs. procedure theEx. WW1/M4, employee etc., to award Ex.
reasons sealed show MW1/4, ofback that full back Ex.
therefor. hein an was wages WW1/M5, envelope. not The rule of civil law that a contract of personal service cannot could Grievance gainfully Ex.
not WW1/M6, be employed proper.
Committee afterEx. hisMW1/5termination. to Ex.be
38. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, workman is Gujarat Road SteelState InTrasporation U.P. Tubes Meeting Mazdoor XXXXxx Vs.may Brassware M. have Sabha by Ld. Nagangauda, taken Corporation AR(AIR for1980, place, workman.
2007Vs. I UdaiSC can LLR 1896), not Narain340 say,inIthat the even Pandey, following self 2006 The initial specifically MW1/12. andwas onus enforced, has therefore, mostnot does of present the not now limit documents shifted the to the jurisdiction workman. of theManagement of the management clearly labour courts. It was Nil. Opportunity nor aware. given". may reflect that words:
employment awarded which would with reinstatement fetchcontinuity any earning ofthat to the and service employee, with 50% including back LLR alwaysIt 214,came the understood Hon'ble to be that Supreme reiteratedwhen time anCourt and order have written names of any members, what can considered again of various retrenchment grant ofprevious reinstatement has been judgments declared and it was agricultural trying "Traveling pursuitsto overlevelwould serious the same be charges ground included of inby misconduct going 'gainful againstevery through employment'. the workman precedentand is rendered back 'illegal',wagesthe by was sameit I asay and is when matter concluded supposed of I was discretion to not that be there void there of the in the was labour ab-initio meeting.
no andcourtbinding hence, and It is precedent that the inoperative; order that of the wages.
supererogatory and wetohold the that rule Iisam simple that falsely.
the discretion to deny Thus, from wrong thea detailed suggest position of reinstatement deposing and back wages I beingto the
33.
the instead result In reinstatement labour of is contrast that holding court or the and to this, pare shouldfulldown employee document back show the would enquiry wages Ex. quantum application be therein CW1/X should deemed ofof and which always back mind to be giving isthis wages on the continuingan opportunity alleged be ispoint.
granted absent in minutes servicewhenand save (Hindustan the ofa for have seen the statement on page already
39. exceptional automatic Reference reasons."
consequence is answered accordingly. Award of a retrenchment being found is passed. illegal, Copy we of have thecomeawarda termination therefore, Motors is thetogrant Ltd. EXCW1/Y1 held Vs. to of Tapanbe illegal.
the therelief and Kumar Ititwasmay held of reinstatement be so that that a and it persons may is full 20/04/01 back have not wages entitled to alongwith get workman the alleged be heard, Grievance management Committee reported Meeting cameas up(2002 held with on 6 SCC, the at41;
termination 10.30 Indian
order
am
long way
Then to in a been in where
position Mohanlal myVs. hand award Bharatbut of stillfulldoback Electronics, not know wages1981 inhas what (3) actually SCC, become 215, all be something sent to benefits only of appropriate because continuous itgovernment would service be would forbepublication lawful to do automatic. so. Itwithin was also days from the 30 acknowledged the Railway Construction connection Co.this Vs. meeting Ajay Kumar was held. reported It is (2003) 4 SCC, 579;
as correct simply shows Sh. rare.
principle oftried R.S. to Vashisth, reinstatement make itwith look Secretary full like back termination as being was wages one simplicitor of thereiterated again members on account present of although in it that ever In since Hindustan that I Kendriya Tinunderstand Works Vidalaya English Vs. Its very Sangthan employees well. Some (supra), reported body the as onus 1979 to (2) prove SCC M.P.receiptState ofElectricity the award. Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141;
was The
noticed concept must
thatDocuments some have ofprobation.
back of the approached wages earlier goes judgments me for alongwith had assistance reinstatement indicated fora since that labouritcourt was workman the meeting. unemployment being had onshifted of to management the workman. are absolutely false and fabricated. 80, UP the normal State Textile writingrule atokind Corporation grant ofVs.areinstatement draft and I justwith P.C. Chaturvedi helped reportedfullhimbackasby (2005) wages was 8,bySCC,
40. considered In after weighing view to be of all the false continuation the facts and fabricated andofcircumstances, the service itself. documents may However, award filed/tendered the latest trend compensation the in lieu is Then once writing again it in down J.K. but I Synthetics was not Vs.concerned K.P. about Agarwal the s. reported as
36. The entireonSecretary acknowledged
34. background the basis himself ofofthefacts previousclearly suggests is judgments. to that It was presentobserved case is said thethat notif
211). Since the meeting as such. I who can not shown say name be of present such in that even reinstatement of management reinstatement and back appropriate is wages.
being replacedare proceedings by separately the compensation. being initiated In M/s against Lords 2007 after a LLR protracted 358, time the and Hon'ble energy Supreme consuming person as I do not even remember what actually Court litigation has noticed during which the previous period the one meeting of Then termination Thereafter, came has General denied both theof havingHaryana service above simplicitor ever reliefs Roadways attended but any of reinstatementVs.
the suchRudhan
order is
meeting. Singh absolutely The(2005), punitive entire 5 Homeopathic Laboratories must have Vs.happened.
Ms. Lissy UnnikunjuBeing and reported seniorback as wages2006have IV, workman judgments the management just andsustains has concluded himself, officials i.ethat ultimately Sh.award V.K. he of is back Nayyar, to be wagestold that Section isOfficer becoming though herare.
(Admn.), willDr. To be SCC, undergone 591. The administrative a progressiveHon'ble Court dilution. officer, listed a it few was In Surender factors my duty on Kumar which to help Vermathe or award Vs. of back Central AD and stigmatic.
(Delhi), proceedings 739, brought Asthesuch,by thetermination Hon'ble High management of are Court service of rendered Delhi of the hasfalseworkman cited and around without 20 quote reinstated,from he the will judgment:
guide beotherdenied back officials. wages which It is correct would that therebewere due tofabricated him, the Aruna wages could Sitesh, be based. Principal/Chairman Some of these factors & Sh. are: R.D. Verma, Administration Govt.
judgments Industrialof the Tribunal, Supreme officials senior 1981 Court to me (1) andSCR,inDelhi 2001 789,i.e itVice High was Court held to that Principal, concludethere may that be in holding workman record."Coming anystands would It enquiry tobe back intowell wages subjected quite theeven tocharges a ifsort explainedtheis of absolutely courtthenfinds penalty that itviolative for no-faultofof necessary management toprovisions award his andback avoided it of is to
1. Nature Principal, of Versor etc. employment It is obvious (whether permanent that there or was temporary or short wages, exceptional Incharge suitable the cases question circumstances in accordance a compensation will be with whether where law.
should an order back be ofwages granted in should reinstatement beandawarded lieu of reinstatement. full backfully wages or wholly undeserved. term governing daily It wage wasbody stated basis of that etc.) any other trustees. I can viewnot would say be placing a onlyI.D. Act as partially examine anywell (and other asifofficer principles of natural so, theof percentage).
the management justice Thatalso as dependsno-one shownupon canbeing as bethecondemned facts and present in may be impossible Although
2. Method there whether or of inequitable are various there selection wasand e.g., recent any when judgments specific employment. thelegalindustry of the advisor might Hon'ble of have closed Supreme premium Fileon circumstances bean ofunwarranted cosigned the each to record litigative case, any income room. activity received of the employer. by the employee during
3.andLength the management of service. or not. It has been very long the downunheard therelevant Court or might granting meeting, which period be on small even has in though whatthey account severe amount ofhas of happened alternative financial compensation were doldrums admittedlyin employment the ranging present or where still from in case.
orRs.
the the Termination business concerned 10,000/- service isthe a to However,
4. Time in time. the elapsed same There after judgment, may his deviation have been. It is wrong to termination. from this rule wasof also relevant Announced factor in theto be open takencourtnote of while awarding back wages, in addition to employeenone 25,000/-, would of have these suggest secured that for an judgments employment thelay down that reason any elseformula there where.
were By the very or guidelines other tone to arrive of recognized Today the service and on 01/10/2008 several management of itthe factors was and workman observed mentioned even is that held otherwise in Rudhanto could be illegal haveas been Singh well assummoned (supra). unjustified.
Therefore,byIssue it theis senior officers to me,(SUJATA there wasKOHLI) no need for me to necessary and at management no.tenor the It 2 said "In the iswas foramount.
of decidedvery the the held guide to nature employee judgment, against prove of that However, in other the thethings, it to casewas plead alleged inthere management officials. the implied that J.U. workman cannot he andwas Akhtar Additional proceedings.
that Vol.
the inbe has not arendered Istraight Vs. District favour onus As gainfully regards towas of thejaclet Management & Sessions prove atheemployed the workman. long formula theJudge of from proceedings exceptional period for M/s of the date of relief awarding his termination----.
administrative of back wages. Presiding is wrong Officer head.AllIt relevant to suggest considerationsLabour thatCourt-II, Iwill enter the service circumstances Markfed and Agro the time would reported elapsed be on as after his the employer. 2006 VIII termination AD However, (Delhi) was 33, Karkardooma smaller in the Kendriya Hon'ble Courts, in comparison, Vidyalya Delhi High before verdict. the More ISSUE No. 1(Relief) Establishment am or deposing less it Committee would falsely be a onit motion ground never sawof addressed light sympathy.
toof day.
the I
discretion of the
On 'What is alternative employment?, while it Delhi. was the view earlier that
full
Sanghtan Court back Tribunal. has wages Full heldback Vs. am S.C. could that notin be wages Sharma, awarded.
would supporting such 2005beany cases, LLR the normal one.275,Irule However, compensationamif and while only the the denying workman emphasising cannot party hasthatbeen beobjecting less thatto than intheita
35. must only
37. The aestablish regular entire the andthe REINSTATEMENT/BACKWAGES documents circumstances substantial false document i.e Ex.
gainful WW1/M2, necessitating of employment Ex.departure".
the the management. MW1/1, would Ex. MW1/2 be considered & 3, to deny short back reliefwages term of back heemployment wouldisotherwise wages or discretion at the was appointed be entitled of to. without the court, it wasfollowing held thatthe proper it was for At this stage this register is directed to be back wages The principle to the workman, was emphatically it has been restated Gujarat heldin now, in NorthSteel Tubes Est KarnatkaLtd. Vs. procedure theEx. WW1/M4, employee etc., to award Ex.
sealed show MW1/4, of full back that he back in Ex.
an was wages WW1/M5, envelope. not The rule of civil law that a contract of personal service cannot could gainfully Ex.
not WW1/M6, be employed proper. afterEx. hisMW1/5 termination.to Ex.be
38. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, workman is Gujarat Road SteelState InTrasporation U.P. TubesBrassware Mazdoor XXXXxx Vs. M. Nagangauda, Sabha by Ld. AR Corporation (AIR for1980, workman. 2007Udai Vs. SC LLR 1896), Narain340 inthat the even Pandey, following self 2006 The initial specifically onus enforced, MW1/12. and mostNil. has therefore, does of the not now limit shifted the documentsgiven". to the jurisdiction workman.
of the labour of the management clearly reflect that courts. It was Opportunity words:
employment awarded which would with reinstatement fetchcontinuity any earning ofthat to the and service employee, with 50% including back LLR always 214, It came the understood Hon'ble to be that Supreme reiterated when time anCourt andconsidered order again of retrenchment various grant ofprevious beenjudgments reinstatement has declaredand it was trying "Traveling agricultural pursuitsto overlevelwould serious the same charges be includedgroundof inby misconduct againstevery goingemployment'. 'gainful through the workman precedentand is rendered back 'illegal',wagesthe by was sameit and a ismatter concluded supposed of discretion to that be voidthere of the was labour ab-initio no and binding courthence, and precedent that the inoperative; order that of the wages.
supererogatory and we hold the rule is simple that the discretion to deny insteadThus, of from holding thea detailed positionenquiry of reinstatement therein and and back wages beingto the
33.
the result In is contrast reinstatement labour that court or the and to parethis, shouldfulldown employee document back show the would wagesEx.
quantum application CW1/X be deemed should ofof mind back to begiving which always isthis wages on the be continuinganispoint.
opportunity alleged granted absent minutes whenand save in (Hindustan service the ofa for
39. exceptional automatic Reference reasons."
consequence is answered accordingly. Award of a retrenchment being found is passed.illegal, Copy we of have thecomeawarda termination therefore, Motors is thetogrant Ltd. held Vs. to of Tapanbe illegal.
the the relief Kumar It was held of reinstatement that a and persons up(2002 is full 20/04/01 back 6 SCC, not wages entitled to alongwith get workman the alleged be heard, Grievance management Committee reported Meeting cameas held with on the at41;
termination 10.30 Indian order am longbe way Then sent to to in a position Mohanlal appropriate where Vs. government award Bharat of full back Electronics, forbepublication wages 1981 within has (3) actually SCC, become 215, days from the 30 acknowledged the something all benefits only of because continuous it would service be would Railway Construction Co. Vs. Ajay Kumar reported as (2003) 4 SCC, 579; lawful to do automatic. so. It was also simply shows Sh. rare.
principle oftried R.S. to Vashisth, reinstatement make itwith look fulllike Secretary back termination as being was wages one simplicitor of thereiterated again members on accountpresent of although in it that ever receiptIn since Hindustan ofElectricity Kendriya Tin Works Vidalaya Vs. Its Sangthan employees the award. Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141; (supra), reported the as onus 1979 to (2) prove SCC M.P. State was The noticed workman concept thatDocuments being some onofprobation.
back of the wages earlier goes judgments alongwith reinstatement had indicated that a since labouritcourt was 80, the meeting. unemployment the normal had shifted of to management the workman. rule to grantVs.reinstatement are absolutely with false full back and fabricated.
wages was UP
40. State In Textile view of Corporation the false and P.C. Chaturvedi fabricated documents reported as (2005) filed/tendered 8,bySCC,the considered after weighing to be allcontinuation the facts andofcircumstances, the service itself. may However, award compensation the latest trend in lieu is
36. Then once The entireonbackground acknowledged
34. again in J.K. the basis ofofthefacts Synthetics Vs. clearlyjudgments. previous K.P. suggests thatAgarwal It was presents.
observedreported case that is notas if
211). Since the Secretary himself who is shown to be present in the said that even reinstatement of management reinstatement and back appropriate is wages.
being replacedare proceedings by separately the compensation. being initiated In M/s againstLords 2007 after a LLR protracted 358, time theandHon'ble energy consumingSupreme Court litigation hasduringnoticed which the period previous the one meeting of Then termination Thereafter, came has General denied of Haryana service having both the above ever Roadways simplicitor attended but any Vs. the Rudhan order such is Singh absolutely meeting. (2005), The punitive entire 5 Homeopathic Laboratories Vs. reliefs Ms. Lissy of reinstatement Unnikunju and reported back as wages2006have IV, workman judgments the management just andsustains has concluded himself, officials i.ethat ultimately Sh.awardV.K. he of isback Nayyar, to be wages told that Section isOfficer becoming though herare.
(Admn.), willDr.To be SCC, undergone 591. The a progressiveHon'ble Court dilution. listed a few In Surender factors on Kumar which Vermathe award Vs. of back Central AD and stigmatic.
(Delhi), proceedings 739, brought Asthesuch, thetermination Hon'ble by High management of are Court service of rendered Delhiof the has workman cited without around 20 quote reinstated,from he the will judgment: be denied back wages which would false be due and tofabricated him, the Aruna wages could Sitesh, be based. Principal/Chairman Some of these factors & Sh. are: R.D. Verma, Administration Govt.
judgments Industrialof the Tribunal, Supreme Court 1981 (1) andSCR, Delhi789, High it wasCourt held to that concludethere may that be in holding workman record."Coming anystands would It enquiry tobe back intowell wages subjected quite theeven tocharges explainedtheis a ifsort of absolutely courtthenfinds penalty that itviolative for no-faultofof necessary management toprovisions award his andback avoided it of is to wages, the1. Nature question of employment will be whether (whether back permanent or temporary or short exceptional Incharge suitable cases circumstances in accordance a compensation where with law.
should an orderbe ofwages granted in should reinstatement beandawarded lieu of reinstatement. full backfully wages or wholly undeserved. term daily It wagewasbasis stated etc.)that any other view would be placing a onlyI.D. Act as partially examine anywell (and other asifofficer principles of natural so, theof percentage).
the management justice Thatalso as no-one depends shownupon canbeing as bethecondemned facts and present in may be impossible Although
2. Method there or of inequitable are various selection and e.g., recent when employment.judgmentsthe industry of the might Hon'ble have closed Supreme premium Fileon circumstances bean ofunwarranted cosigned the each litigative case, to record any income room. activity received of the employer.by the employee during the unheard 3.andLength which of service.
has whatthey has happened in employment the present case. Termination downtherelevant Court or might granting meeting, However, period evenbe on small in the in account severe amount though same of of alternative financial compensation were judgment, doldrums admittedly deviation ranging or where still from from in orRs.
the this business the concerned 10,000/- service rule isthe wasof also a to relevant Announced 4.
factorTimein theto beelapsed open taken after his termination.
courtnote of while awarding back wages, in addition to employeenone 25,000/-, would of have these secured judgments an layemployment down any else formula where. By the very or guidelines tone to arrive of recognized Today the service and on 01/10/2008 several management of itthe factors was and workman observed mentioned even is that otherwiseheld to could in Rudhan be illegal haveas been Singh well assummoned (supra). unjustified.
Therefore,byIssue it the is (SUJATA KOHLI) necessary and at management no.tenor the It 2 said "In the iswasforamount.
of very decided the the held to nature employee judgment, against prove inof that However, the thethings, it to casewas plead alleged inthere management the implied that J.U. workmancannot he andwas Akhtar Additional proceedings.
that the inbe has not arendered favour onus As straight Vs. District gainfully & regards of thejaclet toManagement Sessions prove employed a the formula theJudge workman. long of from proceedings exceptional period for M/s of the date of relief awarding his termination----.
of back wages. All relevant Presiding Officer considerationsLabour Court-II, will enter the service circumstances Markfed and Agrothe time would reported elapsed be on as after his the employer. 2006 VIII termination AD However, (Delhi) was 33, Karkardooma smaller in the Kendriya Hon'ble in Courts, comparison, Vidyalya Delhi High before verdict. the More ISSUE No. 1(Relief)Establishment or less it Committee would be a it motionnever saw addressed light toof day.
the discretion of the On 'What is alternative employment?, while it Delhi. was the view earlier that full Sanghtan Court back Tribunal. has wages Full heldback Vs. S.C. could that in be wages Sharma,such awarded.
would 2005beLLR cases, theHowever, normal 275,rule compensation if and while theemphasising workman the cannot party hasthatbeen beobjecting less thatto than intheita
35. must only
37. The aestablish regularentire thedocuments and REINSTATEMENT/BACKWAGES substantiali.e circumstances Ex. WW1/M2, necessitating gainful employment Ex.departure".
the MW1/1, would Ex. MW1/2 be considered & 3, to deny short back reliefwages term of back employment he wouldisotherwise wages or discretion at the was appointed be entitled of to. without the court, it wasfollowing held thatthe proper it was for back wages The principle to the workman, was emphatically it has been restated Gujarat heldin now, Steel Tubes in North Ltd. Vs. Est Karnatka procedure theEx. WW1/M4, employee etc., to award Ex.
show MW1/4, of thatfull he backEx.
was wages WW1/M5, not could gainfully The rule of civil law that a contract of personal service cannot Ex.
not WW1/M6, be employed proper. afterEx. hisMW1/5 termination.to Ex.be
38. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, workman is Gujarat Road SteelState InTrasporation U.P. TubesBrassware Mazdoor Vs. M. Nagangauda,Sabha (AIR 1980, Corporation 2007Udai Vs. SC LLR 1896),340 inthat Narain the even Pandey, following self 2006 The initial specifically onus enforced,has therefore, does not now limit shifted the MW1/12. and most of the documents of the management clearly reflect that to the jurisdiction workman.
of the labour courts. It was words:
employment awarded which would with reinstatement fetchcontinuity any earning ofthatto the and service employee, with 50% including back LLR always 214, It came the understood Hon'ble to be that Supreme reiterated when time anCourt andconsidered order again of retrenchmentvarious grant ofprevious beenjudgments reinstatement has declaredand it was trying "Traveling agricultural to over pursuits levelwould serious the same charges groundof be included inbymisconduct againstevery goingemployment'. 'gainful through the workman precedentand is rendered back 'illegal',wagestheby was sameit and a ismatter concluded supposed of discretion to that be voidthere of the was labour ab-initio no and binding courthence,and precedent that the inoperative; order that of the wages.
supererogatory and we hold the rule is simple that the discretion to deny insteadThus, of from holding thea detailed positionenquiry of reinstatement therein and and back wages beingto the reinstatement the result labour is that court or the and pare shouldfulldown employee back show the would wages quantum application be deemedshould of begiving toalways of mind back wages on be this continuinganispoint.
opportunity granted absent whenand save in (Hindustan service thea for
39. exceptional automatic Reference reasons."
consequence is answered accordingly. Award of a retrenchment being found is passed. illegal, Copywe of have thecomeawarda termination therefore, Motors workman Ltd. is held thetograntVs.
be heard, to of Tapan be illegal.
the the relief Kumar It was held of reinstatement management reported that cameasand a persons up(2002full back with is 6 SCC, the not entitled wages41; termination to alongwith Indianget order longbe way Thento sent to inaappropriate position where Mohanlal governmentaward of Vs. Bharat for full back wages Electronics, publication 1981 within has (3)30 actually SCC, days from become 215, the the something all benefits only of because continuous it would service be would Railway Construction Co. Vs. Ajay Kumar reported as (2003) 4 SCC, 579; lawfulbe to do automatic. so. It was also acknowledged simply oftried rare.
principle to make itwith reinstatement look fulllikebacktermination wages was simplicitor again reiterated on account althoughof it that ever receiptIn since Hindustan ofElectricity Kendriya Tin Works VidalayaVs. Its Sangthan employees the award. Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141; (supra), reported the as onus 1979 to (2) prove SCC M.P. State was The concept noticed being workman that some onofprobation.
back of thewages earlier goesjudgmentsalongwith reinstatement had indicated that a since labouritcourt was unemployment 80, the normal had shifted to the workman.
rule to grantVs.reinstatement with full back wages was UP
40. State In Textile view of Corporation the false and P.C. Chaturvedi fabricated documents reported as (2005) filed/tendered 8,bySCC,the considered after weighing to be allcontinuation the facts andofcircumstances,the service itself. may However, award compensationthe latest trend in lieu is Then once
36. The entireonbackground acknowledged again in J.K. the basis ofofthefacts Synthetics Vs. K.P. clearlyjudgments.
previous suggests thatAgarwal
It was s.
present reported
observedcase that is notas if
211).
that even reinstatement of management reinstatement and back appropriate is wages.
being replacedare proceedings by separately the compensation. being initiatedIn M/s againstLords 2007 after a LLR protracted 358, time theandHon'ble Supreme Court energy consuming litigation hasduringnoticed which the period previous the oneThen of termination came Thereafter, General of both the above Haryana service Roadways simplicitor but Vs. the Rudhan order is Singh absolutely (2005), punitive 5 Homeopathic Laboratories Vs. reliefs Ms. Lissy of reinstatement Unnikunju and reportedback as wages2006have IV, workman judgments the managementjust andsustains has concluded himself, officials i.ethat ultimately Sh.awardV.K. he of is back Nayyar, to be wages told that Section isOfficer becoming though herare.
(Admn.), willDr.To be SCC, 591. The Hon'ble Court listed a few In Surender factors on which the award of back undergone AD and(Delhi), a progressive stigmatic. 739, As thesuch, dilution.
Hon'ble termination High of Kumar of service Court Delhi of the hasVerma citedVs.
workman Central without around 20 quote reinstated,from he the willjudgment: be denied back wages which would be due to him, the Aruna wages couldSitesh, be based. Principal/Chairman Some of these factors & Sh. are: R.D. Verma, Administration Govt.
judgments Industrial of the Tribunal,Supreme Court 1981 (1) andSCR, Delhi789, High it wasCourt held to that there may conclude that be in holding workman "Coming any enquiry would tobe back into theeven wages subjected tocharges theis a ifsort absolutely court of findsfor penalty itviolative no-faultofof necessary toprovisions award his andback it of is wages, the1. Nature question of employment will be whether (whether back permanent or temporary or short exceptional Incharge suitable cases circumstances in accordance a compensation where with law.
shouldan orderbe ofwages granted in should reinstatement beandawarded lieu of reinstatement. full backfully wages or wholly undeserved. term daily It wage wasbasis stated etc.)that any other view would be placing a onlyI.D.partially Act as well (andasifprinciples of natural justice so, the percentage). That as no-oneupon depends can be thecondemned facts and may be impossible Although
2. Method there or inequitable are various e.g., recent when the judgments industry of the might Hon'ble have closed Supreme premium Fileon circumstances bean of cosigned theofeach unwarranted selection case, to record and anyemployment. litigative room. activity received income of the employer.by the employee during unheard 3.and Length which of service. the down Court relevant or might granting period be on small inhas whatof account severe amount has of happened alternative financial compensation in employment doldrums the present ranging or wherefrom case.
orRs.the Termination business concerned 10,000/- is toa However,
4. Time in the elapsed same after judgment, his termination. deviation from this rule was also relevant Announced factor in theto be open takencourtnote of while awarding back wages, in addition to employeenone 25,000/-, would of have these secured judgments an layemployment down any else formula where. By the very or guidelines tone to arrive of several recognized Today the service andof on 01/10/2008 itthe factors was workman observedis that mentioned held to be illegal in Rudhan Singhas (supra).
well as unjustified.
Therefore, Issue it is (SUJATA KOHLI) necessary and at no.tenor the It 2 said "In the iswasforamount.
of very decided the thejudgment, held nature employee against inofthe that However, things, it to casewas pleadinthere management the implied that J.U. workmancannot he andwas Akhtar Additional that thebe in has not arendered straight Vs. District favour onus gainfully of thejaclet toManagement & Sessions prove employed formula theJudge a workman. long of from exceptional period for M/sof the date of relief awarding his termination----.
of back wages. All relevant Presiding Officer Labour Court-II, considerations will enter the service circumstances Markfed and the Agrowould time reported elapsed be on as 2006after his the employer. termination VIII AD (Delhi) However, was 33, Karkardooma smaller in the Kendriya Hon'ble in Courts, comparison, Vidyalya Delhi High verdict. More ISSUE No. 1(Relief) or less it would be a motion addressed to the discretion of the On 'What is alternative employment?, while it Delhi. was the view earlier that full Sanghtan Court back Tribunal. has wages Full heldback Vs. S.C.could that in be wages Sharma, such awarded.
would2005beLLR cases, theHowever, normal 275,rule compensation if and while theemphasising workman the cannot party hasthatbeen beobjecting less thatto than inthe ita must only
37. aestablish regular and the circumstances REINSTATEMENT/BACKWAGES substantial gainful necessitating employment the departure".
would be considered to deny short back reliefwages term of back employment he wouldisotherwise wages at theor discretion was appointed be entitled of to. without the court, it wasfollowing held thatthe proper it was for back wagesThe principle was emphatically to the workman, it has been restated Gujarat heldin now, Steel Tubes in North Ltd. Vs. Est Karnatka procedure the employee etc., to award show of thatfullhe back was wages not could gainfully The rule of civil law that a contract of personal service cannot be not be employed proper. after his termination.
38. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, workman is Gujarat Road SteelState InTrasporation U.P. TubesBrasswareMazdoor Vs. M. Nagangauda,Sabha (AIR 1980, Corporation 2007Udai Vs. SC LLR 1896),340 inthat Narain the even following self The initial specifically onus enforced,has therefore, does notnow limit shifted to the the jurisdiction workman.
of the labourPandey, courts. It2006 was words:
employment awarded which would with reinstatement fetchcontinuity any earning ofthat to the and service employee, with 50% including back LLR alwaysIt 214,came the understood Hon'ble to be that Supreme reiterated when time anCourt andconsidered order again of retrenchmentvarious grant ofprevious beenjudgments reinstatement has declared and "Traveling agricultural pursuits overwould the same groundinby be included goingemployment'.
'gainful through every precedent is rendered back 'illegal',wagestheby was sameit aandmatter is concluded supposed of discretion to that be voidthere of the was labour ab-initio no and binding court precedent and inoperative; hence, that the orderthat of the wages.
supererogatory and we hold the rule is simple that the discretion to deny Thus, from the position of reinstatement and back wages being the reinstatement the result labour is that court or the and parefulldown should employee back show the would wages quantum application be deemedshould of toalways of mind back be onwages be ispoint.
this continuing granted absent whenand save in (Hindustan service fora
39. Reference exceptional automatic reasons."
consequence is answered accordingly. Award of a retrenchment being found is passed.
illegal, Copywe of have thecomeawarda termination therefore,Ltd. Motors is the grantheld Vs. of to Tapanbe illegal.
the reliefKumar It was held of reinstatement that reported asand a persons full back (2002 is 6 SCC,not entitled wages41; to get alongwith Indian longbe way Thento sent to inaappropriate position where Mohanlal governmentaward of Vs. Bharat for full back wages Electronics, publication 1981 within has (3)30 actually SCC, days from become 215, the the something all benefits only of because continuous it would service be would lawful Railway Construction Co. Vs. Ajay Kumar reported as (2003) 4 SCC, 579; be to do automatic. so. It was also acknowledged rare.
principle of reinstatement with full back wages was again reiterated although it that ever ofsince In Hindustan receipt the award. Kendriya TinBoard Works Vidalaya Vs. ItsSangthan employees (supra), reported theasonus1979 to (2)prove SCC M.P. State Electricity Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141;
The concept of back wages goes alongwith was noticed that some of the earlier judgments had indicated that a labour court reinstatement since it was unemployment 80, the normal had shifted to the workman.
rule to grantVs.reinstatement with full back wages was UP
40. State In Textile view of Corporation the false and P.C. Chaturvedi fabricated documents reported as (2005) filed/tendered 8,bySCC, the considered after weighing to be allcontinuation the facts andofcircumstances, the service itself. may However, the latest trend award compensation in lieu is Then once again in J.K. Synthetics acknowledged on the basis of the previous judgments. It was observed that if Vs. K.P. Agarwal s. reported as
211).
that even reinstatement of management reinstatement and back appropriate is wages.
being replacedare proceedings by separately the compensation. being initiatedIn M/s againstLords 2007 after a LLR protracted 358, time theandHon'ble Supreme Court energy consuming litigation hasduringnoticed which the period previous the Then Thereafter,came General both the above Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudhan Singh (2005), 5 Homeopathic Laboratories Vs. reliefs Ms. Lissy of reinstatement Unnikunju and back as reported wages2006have IV, workman judgments the managementjust andsustains has concludedhimself, officials i.ethat ultimately Sh.awardV.K. he of is back Nayyar, to be wages told that Section isOfficer becoming though herare.
(Admn.), willDr. To be SCC, 591. The Hon'ble Court listed a few In Surender factors on which the award of back undergone AD (Delhi), a progressive 739, the Hon'ble dilution.High Court of Kumar Delhi has Verma citedVs. Central around 20 quote reinstated,from he the willjudgment:be denied back wages which would be due to him, the Aruna wages could Sitesh, be based. Principal/Chairman Some of these factors & Sh. are: R.D. Verma, Administration Govt.
judgments Industrial of the Tribunal, Supreme Court 1981 (1) andSCR, Delhi789, High it was Court held to that there may conclude that be in workman "Coming wouldtobe back wages even subjected to a ifsort theof court findsfor penalty it necessary no-fault of to his award andback it is wages, the 1. Nature question ofwillemployment be whether (whether back permanent orbetemporary or short exceptional Incharge suitable cases circumstances in accordance a compensation where with law.
shouldan orderbe ofwages granted in should reinstatement andawarded lieu of reinstatement.full backfully wages or wholly undeserved. term daily It wage wasbasis stated etc.)that any other view would be placing a only partially (and if so, the percentage). That depends upon the facts and may be impossible Although
2. Method there orare inequitable various e.g., when recent the industry judgments of the might Hon'ble have closed Supreme premium Fileon circumstances bean of cosigned theofeach unwarranted selection to recordcase, and anyemployment. litigative room. activity received income of the employer.
by the employee during the relevant 3. Length period of service. down Court or might granting be on small account inamount severe of offinancialalternative compensation doldrums employment rangingor wherefromorRs. business the concerned 10,000/- is to a However,
4. Time in the same elapsed after judgment, his termination. deviation from this rule was also relevant Announced factor in theto be open takencourtnote of while awarding back wages, in addition to employeenone 25,000/-, would of have these secured judgments an layemployment down any else formulawhere. By the very or guidelines tone to arrive recognized Today the and on 01/10/2008 several it wasmentioned factors observed that in Rudhan Singh (supra). Therefore, it is (SUJATA KOHLI) necessary andthe at tenor It "In the was said foramount.
of very thethejudgment, held nature employee inofit that However, things, to case wasplead theinthere impliedthat J.U. cannot he was Akhtar Additional workmanthat thebe has not arendered straight Vs. District onus gainfully &prove jaclet a employed toManagement Sessions formula theJudge long of from exceptional period for M/sof the date of relief awarding his termination----.
of back wages. All relevant Presiding Officer Labour Court-II, considerations will enter the service Markfed and circumstances the Agrowould time reported elapsed be on after his the employer. as 2006 termination VIII AD (Delhi)However, was 33, Karkardooma smaller in the Kendriya Hon'ble in comparison, Vidyalya Delhi High verdict. More or less it would be a motion addressed to theCourts, discretion of the On 'What is alternative employment?, while it Delhi. was the view earlier that full back Tribunal. Sanghtan Court has wages Full heldback Vs. S.C.could that in be wages Sharma, such awarded.
would2005beLLR cases, However, thenormal 275,rule compensationif and while theemphasising workman the cannotparty hasthatbeen beobjecting less thatto than inthe ita must aestablish only regular and the circumstances substantial gainful necessitating employment the departure".
would be considered to deny short back term reliefwages of back employment he wouldisotherwise wages or discretion at the was appointed be entitled of to. without the court, it wasfollowing held thatthe proper it was for The principle back wages was emphatically to the workman, it has been restated Gujarat heldin now, Steel Tubes in North Ltd. Vs. Est Karnatka procedure the employee etc.,toaward show of that fullheback was wages could not not gainfully be proper.
employed after his termination.
38. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, workman is Gujarat Road SteelState InTrasporation U.P. TubesBrassware Mazdoor Vs. M. Nagangauda,Sabha (AIR 1980, Corporation 2007Udai Vs. SC LLR 1896), 340 inthat Narain the even Pandey, following self 2006 The initial onus has therefore, now shifted to the workman. words:
employment awarded which would with reinstatement fetchcontinuity any earning to the and employee, including LLR 214, It came the Hon'ble to Supremetime be reiterated Court againofthat andconsidered service various grant ofprevious with 50% reinstatement judgments back and "Traveling agricultural pursuits overwould the same groundinby be included goingemployment'.
'gainful through every precedent is rendered back wages by was it aand concluded matter of discretionthat there of the was labour no binding court and that precedent the orderthat of wages.
supererogatory and we hold the rule is simple that the discretion to deny Thus, from the position of reinstatement and back wages being the reinstatement the labour court and or parefulldown should backthe show wages quantum application should of mind of always back wages on be ispoint.
this granted absent whenfora save (Hindustan
39. Reference exceptional automatic reasons."
consequence is answered accordingly. Award of a retrenchment being foundis passed.
illegal, Copy we of have thecomeawarda termination is held to be illegal. It was Motors Ltd. Vs. Tapan Kumar reported as (2002 6 SCC, 41; Indian held that a persons is not entitled to get long be way Thento sent to inaappropriate position where Mohanlal award of Vs. Bharat government for full back wages Electronics, publication 1981 within has (3)30 actually SCC, days from become 215, the the something only because it would be lawful Railway Construction Co. Vs. Ajay Kumar reported as (2003) 4 SCC, 579; to do so. It was also acknowledged rare.
principle of reinstatement with full back wages was again reiterated although it that ever ofsince receipt the award.Kendriya Vidalaya Sangthan (supra), the onus to prove M.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141; was noticed that some of thewages The concept of back earlier goes alongwith judgments reinstatement had indicated that a since labouritcourt was unemployment had shifted to the workman. UP
40. State Textile In view Corporation ofcontinuation the facts falseand and Vs.fabricated P.C. Chaturvedi documents reported as (2005) 8,bySCC, considered after weighing to be all the ofcircumstances, the service itself. awardfiled/tendered may However, the latest trend compensation the in lieuis Then once again in J.K. Synthetics Vs. K.P. Agarwal s. reported as
211).
that even reinstatement of management reinstatement and back appropriate is wages.
being replacedare proceedings by separately the compensation. being initiatedIn M/s againstLords 2007 LLR 358, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has noticed the previous Then came both Thereafter, General Haryana the above Roadways Vs. Rudhanback Singh (2005), 5 Homeopathic Laboratories Vs. reliefs Ms. Lissy of reinstatement Unnikunju and reported as wages2006have IV, judgments the managementand has concludedofficials i.ethat Sh.award of back Section V.K. Nayyar, wages isOfficer becoming (Admn.),rare. Dr. To SCC, 591. The Hon'ble Court listed a few In Surenderfactors on which the award of back undergone AD (Delhi), a progressive 739, the Hon'ble dilution.High Court of Kumar Delhi has Verma citedVs. Central around 20 quote from the judgment:
Aruna wages couldSitesh, be based. Principal/Chairman Some of these factors & Sh. are: R.D. Verma, Administration Govt.
judgmentsIndustrial of the Tribunal, Supreme Court 1981 (1) andSCR,Delhi789, High it was Court heldto that there may conclude that be in "Coming to back wages even if the court finds it necessary to award back wages, the1. Nature question ofwill employment be whether (whether back permanent orbetemporary or short exceptional Incharge suitable cases circumstances in accordance a compensation where with law.
shouldan order be ofwages granted in should reinstatement andawarded lieu of reinstatement.full backfully wages or term daily wage basis etc.) only partially (and if so, the percentage). That depends upon the facts and may be impossible Although
2. Method thereorare inequitable various e.g., when recent the industry judgments of the might Hon'ble have closed Supreme circumstances File be cosignedof theofeach selection to recordcase,and anyemployment.
room. income received by the employee during the relevant3. Length period of service. down Court or might granting be on small account inamount severe of offinancialalternative compensation doldrums employment ranging fromorRs.
or where business the concerned 10,000/- is toa relevant Announced 4. Time factor elapsed to be in the opentaken after his termination.
courtnote of while awarding back wages, in addition to employeenone 25,000/-, would of have these secured judgments an layemployment down any else formula where. By the very or guidelines tone to arrive Today the on 01/10/2008 several factors mentioned in Rudhan Singh (supra). Therefore, it is (SUJATA KOHLI) necessary andthe at tenor Itsaid was foramount. of thethejudgment, held employee that However, in it to case wasplead the impliedthat J.U. in workman he that was Akhtar Additionalthe has not Vs.gainfully District onus &prove rendered a employed toManagement Sessions theJudge long of from M/s exceptional period of the date of his termination----. Presiding Officer Labour Court-II, service Markfed and circumstances the Agrowould time reported elapsed be on after his the employer. as 2006 termination VIII AD (Delhi)However, was 33, in Karkardooma smaller the in comparison, Kendriya Hon'ble Courts, Vidyalya Delhi High On 'What is alternative employment?, while it Delhi. was the view earlier that full Courtback Sanghtan has wages Vs. heldS.C. could that in be Sharma, such awarded.
2005 LLR cases, However, the 275, while compensationif theemphasising workman cannot be has thatbeen less thatinthea than only a regular and substantial gainful employment would be considered to deny short back term reliefwages of back employment he wouldisotherwise wages or discretion at the was appointed be entitled of to. without the court, following it was held thatthe proper it was for back wages to the workman, it has been held now, in North Est Karnatka procedure the employee etc.,toawardshow of fullheback that was wages could not not gainfully be proper.
employed after his termination.
38. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, workman is Road InTrasporation U.P. State Vs. M. Nagangauda, Brassware Corporation 2007Udai Vs. LLR 340 that Narain even2006 Pandey, self The initial onus has therefore, now shifted to the workman. employment awarded which would with reinstatement fetchcontinuity any earning to the and employee, including LLR 214, It came the Hon'ble to Supremetime be reiterated Court againofthat andconsidered service various with 50% grant ofprevious back judgments reinstatement and agricultural pursuits would be included in 'gainful employment'. rendered back wages bywas it aandmatterconcluded that of of discretion there was nocourt the labour binding precedent and that the orderthat of wages.
Thus, from the position of reinstatement and back wages being the reinstatement the labour court and full show should back application wages should of mind alwayson thisbe point.
granted when a (Hindustan
39. Reference automatic consequence is answered accordingly. Award of a retrenchment being foundis passed. Copy illegal, we ofhavethecome awarda termination is held to be illegal. It was held Motors Ltd. Vs. Tapan Kumar reported as (2002 6 SCC, 41; Indian that a persons is not entitled to get long be way sent to to aappropriate position where award of government forfull back wages publication within has30actually days frombecome the something only because it would be lawful to Railway Construction Co. Vs. Ajay Kumar reported as (2003) 4 SCC, 579; do so. It was also acknowledged rare.
that ever ofsince receipt Kendriya Vidalaya Sangthan (supra), the onus to prove the award. M.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Zarina Beg reported as (2003) 6 SCC, 141;
The concept of back wages goes alongwith reinstatement since it was unemployment had shifted to the workman. UP
40. State Textile In view Corporation ofcontinuation the false and Vs.fabricated P.C. Chaturvedi documents reported as (2005) 8,bySCC, filed/tendered considered to be of the service itself. However, the latest trendthe is Then once again in J.K. Synthetics Vs. K.P. Agarwal s. reported as
211).
that even reinstatement management appropriate is being replacedare proceedings by separately the compensation. In M/s against being initiated Lords 2007 LLR 358, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has noticed the previous Then came General Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudhan Singh (2005), 5 Homeopathic Laboratories Vs. Ms. Lissy Unnikunju reported as 2006 IV, judgments the managementand has concluded officials i.ethat Sh.award of back Section V.K. Nayyar, wages isOfficer becoming rare. Dr. (Admn.), To SCC, 591. The Hon'ble Court listed a few factors on which the award of back AD (Delhi), 739, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has cited around 20 quote from the judgment:
Aruna wages could Sitesh, be based. Principal/Chairman Some of these factors & Sh. are: R.D. Verma, Administration judgments of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court to conclude that in "Coming to back wages even if the court finds it necessary to award back wages, the1. Nature question ofwill employment be whether (whether back permanent wages orbetemporary awarded or short Incharge suitable cases in accordance a compensation with law. be should granted in should lieu of reinstatement. fully or term daily wage basis etc.) only partially (and if so, the percentage). That depends upon the facts and Although
2. Method there are various recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme circumstances File be cosignedof theofeachselection case,and to record anyemployment.
room. income received by the employee during the relevant 3. Length period of service. Court granting smallonamountaccount of of alternative employment compensation ranging fromorRs. business 10,000/- is to a relevant Announced 4. Time factor elapsed to be in the opentakenafter his termination.
courtnote of while awarding back wages, in addition to 25,000/-, Today none on 01/10/2008 of these judgments lay down any formula or guidelines to arrive the several factors mentioned in Rudhan Singh (supra). Therefore, it is (SUJATA KOHLI) necessary at foramount. theItsaid was the employee held to plead that However, in case the that J.U. he in workman was Akhtar Additional not Vs.gainfully District has a employed Management & Sessions rendered Judge long of from periodM/sof the date of his termination----. Presiding Officer Labour Court-II, service and the time elapsed after his Markfed Agro reported as 2006 VIII AD (Delhi) termination was smaller 33, the Karkardooma in comparison, Hon'ble Courts, Delhi High On 'What is alternative employment?, while it Delhi. was the view earlier that full Court back has wages could held that in be awarded.
such cases, theHowever, if the workman compensation cannot be has lessbeen thaninthea only a regular and substantial gainful employment would be considered to deny short term he back wages employment or was would otherwise appointed be entitled to. without following the proper back wages to the workman, it has been held now, in North Est Karnatka procedure etc., award of full back wages could not be proper.
38. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, workman is Road InTrasporation Vs. M. Nagangauda, U.P. State Brassware Corporation Vs. 2007Udai LLR 340 that Narain even2006 Pandey, self employment awarded which would with reinstatement fetchcontinuity any earning to the and of service employee, including with 50% back LLR 214, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered various previous judgments agricultural pursuits would be included in 'gainful employment'. rendered wages. by it and concluded that there was no binding precedent that Thus, from the position of reinstatement and back wages being the reinstatement and full back wages should always be granted when a
39. Reference automatic is answered consequence accordingly. Award of a retrenchment is passed.
being found Copy illegal, we of thecome have awarda termination is held to be illegal. It was held that a persons is not entitled to get long be way sent toto aappropriate position where award of forfull back wages has30 actually become something only because itgovernment would be lawful publication to do so. Itwithin days from was also acknowledged the rare.
that ever ofsince receipt Kendriya Vidalaya Sangthan (supra), the onus to prove the award. The concept of back wages goes alongwith reinstatement since it was unemployment had shifted to the workman.
40. In view considered to be ofcontinuation the false and fabricated of the documents service itself. However,filed/tendered by the the latest trend is Then once again in J.K. Synthetics Vs. K.P. Agarwal s. reported as that even reinstatement management appropriateis being replacedare proceedings by separately the compensation. In M/s against being initiated Lords 2007 LLR 358, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has noticed the previous Homeopathic Laboratories Vs. Ms. Lissy Unnikunju reported as 2006 IV, judgments and has concluded the management officials i.ethat Sh.award of back Section V.K. Nayyar, wages isOfficer becoming rare. Dr. (Admn.), To AD (Delhi), 739, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has cited around 20 quote from the judgment:
Aruna Sitesh, Principal/Chairman & Sh. R.D. Verma, Administration judgments of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court to conclude that in "Coming to back wages even if the court finds it necessary to award back wages, suitable the Incharge question in cases will be accordance a compensation withwhether law. be should back wages granted in should be awarded fully or lieu of reinstatement. only partially (and if so, the percentage). That depends upon the facts and Although there are various recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme circumstances of the each File be cosigned case,room.
to record any income received by the employee during the relevant Court granting period smallonamount accountof of alternative employment compensation ranging fromorRs. business is to 10,000/- a relevant Announcedfactor to be in the taken open courtnote of while awarding back wages, in addition to 25,000/-, Today none of on 01/10/2008 these judgments lay down any formula or guidelines to arrive the several factors mentioned in Rudhan Singh (supra). Therefore, it is (SUJATA KOHLI) necessary at the saidforamount.
the employee to plead However, that in J.U. he wasDistrict Akhtar Additional not Vs.gainfully employed Management & Sessions Judgeof from M/s the date of his termination----. Presiding Officer Labour Court-II, Markfed Agro reported as 2006 VIII AD (Delhi) 33, the Hon'ble Karkardooma Courts, Delhi High On 'What is alternative employment?, while it was the view earlier that Court has held that in such cases, the compensationDelhi. cannot be less than the only a regular and substantial gainful employment would be considered to deny back wages he would otherwise be entitled to. back wages to the workman, it has been held now, in North Est Karnatka
38. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, workman is Road Trasporation Vs. M. Nagangauda, 2007 LLR 340 that even self employment which would with awarded reinstatement fetchcontinuity any earning to the and of service employee, including with 50% back agricultural pursuits would be included in 'gainful employment'.
wages.
Thus, from the position of reinstatement and back wages being the
39. Reference automatic is answered consequence accordingly. Award of a retrenchment is passed.
being found Copy illegal, we of thecome have awarda long be way sent to to aappropriate position where award of government forfull back wages publication has30 within actually become days from the rare.
receipt of the award. The concept of back wages goes alongwith reinstatement since it was
40. In view considered ofcontinuation to be the false and fabricated of the documents service itself. filed/tendered However, by the the latest trend is that even reinstatement management is being appropriate replacedare proceedings by separately the compensation. In M/s against being initiated Lords Homeopathic Laboratories Vs. Ms. Lissy Unnikunju reported as 2006 IV, the management officials i.e Sh. V.K. Nayyar, Section Officer (Admn.), Dr. AD (Delhi), 739, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has cited around 20 Aruna Sitesh, Principal/Chairman & Sh. R.D. Verma, Administration judgments of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court to conclude that in Incharge suitable in accordance cases withshould a compensation law. be granted in lieu of reinstatement.
Although there are various recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme File be cosigned to record room. Court granting small amount of compensation ranging from Rs. 10,000/- to Announced in the open court 25,000/-, none of these judgments lay down any formula or guidelines to arrive Today on 01/10/2008 (SUJATA KOHLI) at the said amount. However, in J.U. Akhtar Additional Vs. Management District & Sessions Judgeof M/s Presiding Officer Labour Court-II, Markfed Agro reported as 2006 VIII AD (Delhi) 33, the Hon'ble Karkardooma Courts, Delhi High Court has held that in such cases, the compensationDelhi.
cannot be less than the back wages he would otherwise be entitled to.
38. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, workman is awarded reinstatement with continuity of service and with 50% back wages.
39. Reference is answered accordingly. Award is passed. Copy of the award be sent to appropriate government for publication within 30 days from the receipt of the award.
40. In view of the false and fabricated documents filed/tendered by the management appropriate proceedings are separately being initiated against the management officials i.e Sh. V.K. Nayyar, Section Officer (Admn.), Dr. Aruna Sitesh, Principal/Chairman & Sh. R.D. Verma, Administration Incharge in accordance with law.
File be cosigned to record room.
Announced in the open court Today on 01/10/2008 (SUJATA KOHLI) Additional District & Sessions Judge Presiding Officer Labour Court-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.