Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.24 seconds)
Documents citing Senior Medical Officer, Incharge, ... vs Sukhwinder Singh And Anr. on 31 August, 2006

Range Forest Officer vs Sh. Ram Chander And Another on 2 September, 2009

This Hon'ble Court, through two Division Bench decisions have also held that in view of Section 25 J that directed the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act to apply notwithstanding anyother law to the contrary, a daily rated worker to be entitled to reinstatement in Dhani Ram v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faridabad 2007 (1) SCT 59 and Senior Medical Officer-in-charge, PHC, v Sukhwinder Singh 2007 (2) SCT 112. Which way the Hon'ble Supreme Court would ultimate guide us to apply the principles could be still a matter of time but matters cannot hang in thin air till then. The law is clear enough that there is no law that a daily rated worker is not entitled to reinstatement in public employments. There is sufficient guidance available through serveral erudite pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by the Division Bench. If the reference to all the judgments could be distilled to legal principles, they could perhaps be stated as follows:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 7 - K Kannan - Full Document

M/S Punjab Steel Forging & Agro ... vs Presiding Officer, ... on 29 April, 2022

Although, the learned counsel for the respondent-workman has relied upon the judgment of Sukhwinder Singh and another's case (supra), however, the said judgment is totally distinguishable. The said judgment is qua the proposition that once the employee has completed 240 days of service and he is retrenched from service, then, he is entitled to get retrenchment compensation, failure in payment of which, the Court has to order reinstatement of service. Although, this proposition of law cannot be disputed but this proposition of law pre-supposes existence of 'retrenchment' as contemplated by Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Unless 7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 06:52:02 ::: CWP-19905-2013 CWP-14440-2013 -8- the termination of service of a workman falls within the definition of retrenchment, there is no obligation upon the employer to serve any notice or to pay any compensation. In the present case, the respondent-workman has not led any evidence to show that he had ever approached the petitioner- employer for joining after recovering from the injuries. On the other hand, the consistent stand of the petitioner-employer has been that the respondent- workman never approached the authorities to join his duties; and that they are ready to permit him to join even now. This shows that the termination of services of the respondent-workman does not falls under the definition of 'retrenchment' as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, there was no requirement of serving any notice or payment of any retrenchment compensation.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R Sehrawat - Full Document
1