Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.23 seconds)
{The Requisite Details Of The vs M/S. Ring Road Honda (Sugoi Motor Pvt. ... on 27 January, 2022
cites
Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak & Ors on 12 August, 2013
47. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu's case (supra) has held
that the Courts must always keep in view that in the cases of
wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer
and sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to
give premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the
burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back
wages.
Jagbir Singh vs Haryana State Agr.Marketing Board & Anr on 14 July, 2009
44. It is pertinent to mention here that in the landmark judgment titled as
Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak & Ors.,
2013(10) SCC 324, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dealt with judgment
cited by the Management i.e. Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State
Agriculture Marketing Board (supra) and held that in cases of
wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service
and back wages is the normal rule. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as
follows:
Prem Dayal vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 17 November, 2004
37. Thus, it is clear that it is not a case of abandonment of job by the
Workman rather it is a case of retrenchment. It is not disputed that the
Workman had worked with Management for more than 240 days during
the period of twelve calendar months preceding the date of his last
working day. It is settled law that irrespective of whether a Workman was
daily wager or not, once he has completed 240 days of continuous
service, the termination of his services without complying with the
provision of Sec.25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is illegal.
(Reliance is placed on Rameshwar Dayal Vs. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court & Anr., 2007 (95) DRJ 523; Delhi Cantonment Board
Vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, 2006 (88) DRJ 75). The MW-1
has categorically stated in his deposition that more than 250 workers
were working with the Management. Hence Sec.25-N of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 is attracted in this case. As per Sec.25-N, the
employer is bound to give to Workman, at the time of retrenchment,
three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof and a compensation
LID No.475/2016
Deepak Chauhan Vs. M/s. Ring Road Honda (Sugoi Motor Pvt. Ltd.)
Page 29 of 38
equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every completed year of
continuous service. The present case is not one where the Management
had issued any notice or given any notice pay or retrenchment
compensation to the Workman in accordance with Sec.25-N of Industrial
Disputes Act. Hence, it is held that the termination of services of
Workman by the Management is illegal. Accordingly, this issue is
decided in favour of the Workman and against the Management.
ISSUE NO.3
Whether the workman was last seen in the office of management
on 26.11.2014 and workman by his own will and mind stopped
coming to the office of management without
communication/intimating to the supervisory officials in order to
escape the liabilities for the amount received by him from the
customers and dishonestly siphoned by the workman and did not
turn up to rejoin duties with the management nor returned money
received by him from the customers on behalf of management?
Shivji Sharma vs Secretary (Labour) & Anr. on 20 March, 2015
43. He has further argued that the Workman in the present case had worked
with the Management for 1 year and 3 months only and the Hon'ble
Superior Courts have granted compensation instead of reinstatement in
such kind of cases. He has placed reliance upon the following
judgments: Dharamraj Nivrutti Kasture Vs. Chief Executive Officer and
Anr., (2019) 11 SCC 289; Management of Hindu Educational Society Vs.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2009 (158) DLT 212; Rameshwar Dayal Vs.
Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Anr., 2007(5) AD(Delhi) 138; Shivji
Sharma Vs. Secretary Labour, 2015(4) AD(Delhi) 116; Sukhbir Singh Vs.
LID No.475/2016
Deepak Chauhan Vs. M/s. Ring Road Honda (Sugoi Motor Pvt. Ltd.)
Page 33 of 38
Delhi Transport Corporation, 2012(192) DLT 517; and Talwara
Cooperative Credit & Service Society Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar, 2008(9)
SCC 486. Though there is no dispute with respect to the proposition of
law laid down in the above-said authorities, but every case has its own
facts and circumstances and the ratio of law laid down in a particular
authority is to be applied according to the peculiar facts and
circumstances of that case.
Talwara Coop.Credit &Service Society ... vs Sushil Kumar on 1 October, 2008
43. He has further argued that the Workman in the present case had worked
with the Management for 1 year and 3 months only and the Hon'ble
Superior Courts have granted compensation instead of reinstatement in
such kind of cases. He has placed reliance upon the following
judgments: Dharamraj Nivrutti Kasture Vs. Chief Executive Officer and
Anr., (2019) 11 SCC 289; Management of Hindu Educational Society Vs.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2009 (158) DLT 212; Rameshwar Dayal Vs.
Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Anr., 2007(5) AD(Delhi) 138; Shivji
Sharma Vs. Secretary Labour, 2015(4) AD(Delhi) 116; Sukhbir Singh Vs.
LID No.475/2016
Deepak Chauhan Vs. M/s. Ring Road Honda (Sugoi Motor Pvt. Ltd.)
Page 33 of 38
Delhi Transport Corporation, 2012(192) DLT 517; and Talwara
Cooperative Credit & Service Society Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar, 2008(9)
SCC 486. Though there is no dispute with respect to the proposition of
law laid down in the above-said authorities, but every case has its own
facts and circumstances and the ratio of law laid down in a particular
authority is to be applied according to the peculiar facts and
circumstances of that case.
Smt. Sulochana Devi Thru. Lrs. vs Dda & Anr. on 6 September, 2013
"The Apex Court had laid down in catena of judgments that
while applying the ratio laid down in a case, the facts of the
reiterated case in which such a proposition of law has been
laid down, must also be correlated and seen in the light of the
fact of the cases in which it is sought to be applied. The
propositions of law which are laid down in different case
cannot be treated like theorems or principles of mathematics
and made applicable to the facts of the case in hand in an
implied manner."