Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (1.06 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Lalit Mohan Puri vs Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Ltd. on 30 October, 1991
18. As held by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Lalit Mohan Puri's case (cited supra) that in such cases the employer cannot take the defence of continued ill health and bring their action on the exception to Section 2(oo) of the I.D.Act. If the workman was absent for a long period can be a good ground for discharge but that cannot be on the basis of self serving medical opinion given by their own company Doctor. Even the evidence rendered by the Doctor was not satisfactory to hold the workman was continuously ill health and had become physically disabled to function as a Driver. Therefore, the discharge order issued by the second respondent Management as per Ex.M6 is not valid. Once it is held that the petitioner do not suffer from any medical unfitness to work as a Driver, then the discharge order passed is contrary to Section 25-F of the I.D.Act in as much as he had not been given the notice pay and compensation as required under law.
Union Of India (Uoi), Through General ... vs Subhash P. Dunagu And Ors. on 31 July, 2001
13. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon short summary of cases of the Bombay High Court in Union of India v. Subhash P.Dunagu reported in 2002-IV-L.L.J.(Suppl) NOC 22 found at page 1051, wherein the Bombay High Court has held that a person being medically unfit for permanent absorption will not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that he was liable for termination from the temporary employment on ground of continued ill health. It is not clear as to how these two decisions are of any assistance to the petitioner.
Bisra Stone Lime Company Ltd. vs Their Workmen Mohender Dip And Ors. on 11 December, 1990
14. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the division Bench Judgment of the Orissa High Court in Bisra Stone Lime Company Ltd. v. Their Workmen Mohender Dip and Others reported in 1992 1 L.L.J. 616. In that case, the Court held that for the purpose of bringing a person from the exception found under Section 2(oo) of the I.D.Act and to prove that there was a continued ill health, it must be established the sickness was of sufficiently long duration and continuous. If once the case of workman do not fall under the exception carved out under Section 2(oo) of the I.D.Act, then he will come under the main definition. Therefore, he is eligible for the protection under Section 25-F of the I.D.Act and in such cases, if the condition precedent under Section 25-F of the I.D.Act was not followed, the workman was eligible for relief of reinstatement.
Mani Higher Secondary School, ... vs The Joint Director (Secondary) School ... on 11 March, 1988
17. When a person who goes on sick leave and joins duty with a fitness certificate and if the employer accepts the said certificate and permits him to join duty, then the very same sickness/ailment cannot be held to be a ground to hold him medically unfit to discharge his duties. This Court vide its judgment in Mani Higher Secondary School V. Joint Director (Secondary) School Education, Madras and others reported in 1989 1 LLJ 34 has held that in such circumstances, the employer cannot dispose of the employee on the basis of medical unfitness. In the present case, the findings of the Labour Court are not supported by legal evidence.
Harvilas Kushwah vs Sports Authority Of India And Ors. on 5 April, 1995
12. The learned thereafter placed reliance upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Harvilas Kushwah v. Sports Authority of India & Others reported in 1996 (1) L.L.J. 450. In that case, it was held that investigating an employee suffering from Diabetes cannot be labelled as continued ill health so as to take outside the purview of the term retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, on facts it was held that it was not a case coming within the exception found under Section 2(oo) of the I.D.Act and the employer's action terminating the service of the workman was clearly a retrenchment within the meaning of I.D.Act.
1