Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.23 seconds)Assistant General Manager, vs Shri Jagiiwan Lal Patel on 27 February, 2017
18. In view of aforesaid analysis, in a case of this nature where
workman has merely worked for 247 days, in the considered
opinion of this Court, he cannot be directed to be reinstated. The
similar view was taken by this Court in W.P. No.14670/2005
(Assistant General Manager Vs. Jagjiwan Lal Patel). Shri Nair
informed that the Division Bench of this Court has upheld this
order passed in the case of Jagjiwan Lal Patel (spura).
Jagbir Singh vs Haryana State Agr.Marketing Board & Anr on 14 July, 2009
15. Similar view is taken in 2009 (15) SCC 327 (Jagbir Singh
Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board), 2008(4) SCC
261 (Gaziabad Development Authority and another Vs. Ashok
Kumar and another), 2008 (1) SCC 575 (Mahboob Deepak Vs.
Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and another). In this case, it was
held that award of reinstatement with backwages in a case where
workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the
date of termination, particularly daily wagers has not been found
to be proper by Supreme Court and instead compensation has
been awarded.
Management Hindustan Machine Tools ... vs Ghanshyam Sharma on 30 October, 2018
Heavy reliance is placed on the recent
judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ghanshyam
(4)
W.P. No.2572-2017 & 12015-2017
Sharma(Supra) where Apex Court granted Rs.50,000/- as
compensation.
Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak & Ors on 12 August, 2013
The
judgment of Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra) was considered in
Tapas Kumar Paul (supra) on which reliance is placed by Shri
Jitendra Kumar Sharma. In Para 4 of the judgment, the Apex
Court has quoted certain examples/instances when compensation
can be granted in lieu of reinstatement. In the considered opinion
of this Court, the instances/examples given in Para 4 are
(9)
W.P. No.2572-2017 & 12015-2017
illustrative in nature and cannot be treated to be exhaustive, which
is clear from following portion:
Tapas Kumar Paul vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors on 17 May, 2017
The
judgment of Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra) was considered in
Tapas Kumar Paul (supra) on which reliance is placed by Shri
Jitendra Kumar Sharma. In Para 4 of the judgment, the Apex
Court has quoted certain examples/instances when compensation
can be granted in lieu of reinstatement. In the considered opinion
of this Court, the instances/examples given in Para 4 are
(9)
W.P. No.2572-2017 & 12015-2017
illustrative in nature and cannot be treated to be exhaustive, which
is clear from following portion:
Sanjay Kumar Tiwary And Ors. vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 25 January, 2008
However, a plain reading of Para 16 & 17 of written
statement shows that the work was indeed taken by the employer
from the workman. For the purpose of invoking Section 25-F of
I.D. Act, 1947, the status of workman is immaterial. In other
words, his nature of appointment and mode of appointment is not
material for the purpose of protection given under Section 25F of
the said act. [See 2008 (2) Labour Law Journal (DB) 977
(Sanjay Kumar Tiwary vs. State of Bihar), (2010) 5 SCC 497
(Anoop Sharma vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division
No.1, Panipat (Haryana)), (2006) 6 SCC 275 (Rajasthan
Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs. Intejam Ali
Zafri) and (2015) 6 SCC 321 (Ajaypal Singh vs. Haryana
Warehousing Corporation)].
Anoop Sharma vs Exec.Eng.Pub.Health Division ... on 9 April, 2010
However, a plain reading of Para 16 & 17 of written
statement shows that the work was indeed taken by the employer
from the workman. For the purpose of invoking Section 25-F of
I.D. Act, 1947, the status of workman is immaterial. In other
words, his nature of appointment and mode of appointment is not
material for the purpose of protection given under Section 25F of
the said act. [See 2008 (2) Labour Law Journal (DB) 977
(Sanjay Kumar Tiwary vs. State of Bihar), (2010) 5 SCC 497
(Anoop Sharma vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division
No.1, Panipat (Haryana)), (2006) 6 SCC 275 (Rajasthan
Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs. Intejam Ali
Zafri) and (2015) 6 SCC 321 (Ajaypal Singh vs. Haryana
Warehousing Corporation)].
Rajasthan Tourism Dev. Corpn. Ltd. & Anr vs Intejam Ali Zafri on 13 July, 2006
However, a plain reading of Para 16 & 17 of written
statement shows that the work was indeed taken by the employer
from the workman. For the purpose of invoking Section 25-F of
I.D. Act, 1947, the status of workman is immaterial. In other
words, his nature of appointment and mode of appointment is not
material for the purpose of protection given under Section 25F of
the said act. [See 2008 (2) Labour Law Journal (DB) 977
(Sanjay Kumar Tiwary vs. State of Bihar), (2010) 5 SCC 497
(Anoop Sharma vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division
No.1, Panipat (Haryana)), (2006) 6 SCC 275 (Rajasthan
Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs. Intejam Ali
Zafri) and (2015) 6 SCC 321 (Ajaypal Singh vs. Haryana
Warehousing Corporation)].
U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. & Anr vs Udai Narain Pandey on 8 December, 2005
9. In the last few years it has been consistently held by this
Court that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not
automatic even if termination of an employee is found to be
illegal or is in contravention of the prescribed procedure and
that monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and
back wages in cases of such nature may be appropriate. (See
U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey
[(2006) 1 SCC 479 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 250], Uttaranchal Forest
Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi [(2007) 9 SCC 353: (2007) 2
SCC (L&S) 813] , State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma [(2007) 1
SCC 575 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 405], M.P. Admn.