Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Harjinder Singh vs Punjab State Warehousing Corp on 5 January, 2010
4. It was submitted by Ms Deepali Gupta learned counsel appearing for the workman that
the Labour Court erred in not directing reinstatement of the workman with full back
wages after holding his retrenchment to be illegal. She placed reliance on the judgement
of the Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation
(2010) 1 SCALE 613. She pointed out that the management never challenged the finding
of the Labour Court that the workmen had completed 240 days of service in one calendar
year and that Section 25F of the ID Act therefore straightaway applied. She further
submitted that with the management having challenged the Award it was plain that it was
not interested in taking the workman back in service. The compensation amount
Awarded by the Labour Court was too meagre. Having obtained a stay of the impugned
Award the management was bound to comply with the order dated 15th March, 2011
passed by this Court asking it to pay wages in terms of Section 17B ID Act.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
1