TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds Workman's Reinstatement with Full Back Wages</h1> <h3>DELHI CLOTH & GENERAL MILLS LTD. Versus. SHAMBHU NATH MUKHERJEE & ORS</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the reinstatement of the workman with full back wages, dismissing the management's objections regarding the applicability of ... - Issues involved: Dispute regarding termination of services, applicability of section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act, vires of section 2A, objection under Article 14 of the Constitution, refusal to interfere with the award under Article 226.Dispute regarding termination of services: The workman was recruited as a labourer, promoted to various positions, and eventually offered a fitter position after reorganization. The management found him unsuitable for a post and offered him a different position, which he did not accept due to personal reasons. The management then automatically struck off his name from the rolls for continued absence without intimation, leading to a prolonged legal battle.Applicability of section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act: The Labour Court reinstated the workman with full back wages, emphasizing that any dispute regarding termination of services of an individual workman amounts to an industrial dispute under section 2A. The management objected, arguing that the workman's case was not espoused by other workmen or a union, raising a new point on the vires of section 2A.Vires of section 2A: The management challenged the vires of section 2A, contending that it was ultra vires the powers of the Legislature under the Constitution. However, the objection was not raised before the Labour Court or the High Court, leading to a dismissal of the argument by the Supreme Court.Objection under Article 14 of the Constitution: The management raised objections under Article 14, arguing that there could be no reference under section 2A after the termination of the workman's employment. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, citing precedent and holding that there was no error of law or jurisdiction in the award.Refusal to interfere with the award under Article 226: The Supreme Court found no manifest error of law or jurisdiction in the award, upholding the reinstatement of the workman and dismissing the appeal with costs. The order striking off the workman's name from the rolls was deemed erroneous, as it did not comply with the mandatory provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
