Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)Section 25 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 25G in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Minimum Wages Act, 1948
Gaffar And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 7 February, 1983
34. Moreover, onto the factual aspect of the case for the purpose
of Section 25G and H of the I.D. Act, the management witness
admitted that "it is correct that similarly placed safai karamchari
who joined in 2006-07 to till date are still working with
management. No seniority list was exhibited on or before
terminating the services of the workman...... It is correct that juniors
of workman are still working with management" . The said witness
also admitted that the similarly situated workers as Safai
Karamchari have been regularized in service in the regular payscale.
It implies that not only the management terminated the services of
the workman violating the provisions of Section 25G of I.D. Act but
have also regularized the services of co-workers of the workmen,
whereas, the workman was discriminated against by the
management. The division bench of Patna High Court in Gaffar and
Ors. vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors., 1983(31)BLJR282 have
highlighted the importance of Rule 77 of I.D Rules and failing to
implement the same renders the termination/retrenchment illegal.
The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced below:
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Harjinder Singh vs Punjab State Warehousing Corp on 5 January, 2010
35. The similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing
Corporation, AIR 2010 SC 1116. In view of the admitted position
and the mandate of the law, this tribunal holds that the management
has clearly committed unfair labour practice as mentioned in Fifth
POIT-30/2021 Page No. 19/21
Schedule at Item No. 5(a), (b) and (f) of the I.D. Act by terminating
the services of the workman concerned by way of victimization and
in colourable exercise of employer's rights as no proper
grounds/reasons were afforded as to why the services of the
workman. This tribunal further holds that the management did not
follow the principles of natural justice as no domestic/departmental
inquiry was conducted and his services were terminated on
02.01.2017 with undue haste without offering any opportunity to
being heard. Even in case of termination simpliciter, the management
contravened Section 25 F, G and H of the I.D. Act.