Judgment · High Court · 2002
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
l.Stu-i. l.alaan, S/Q Shri RaghuaandaB, Ctr Na.04, H-Aveaue,. A-Zaae, Kturusipar, Sector-ll. Bhilai, Iri.st .Durg (CG) . ^? ^
Presiiaing Offlcer, Laboar Ceart, Darg.
Asstt. Laboai: CSianission er, La&our Divtsion, narg . ^RIT PETITION UHDER ARTICLE 227 QF THG COBSriTOTIQN. OF INDIA sli''::1~i:lliEBni-SL—L-' ...._^ + ;&HC—78 3^ <-i<l<i!diJ, '^r^THS'; TsT^ra^p 'iWvfi %'<t' ..t-J..^;..Na.;..l?r'J.a??Z. ,uv ^T^i" ^^? (^t^^:?) s^?f '^n T^n^ | 's" 3"^l sini'B' ( Wsv we, ^nig^pa^ 'EBpferan irmrif •S feT^ ^(<!R % StRpT 3'i^i Shri Ranbir Siagh, counsel for the petitioner. Heard on tfae question ofquluussion. ['<">—e;"t"*s!( This writ petition is ditected against the order dated j 06-12-2000 passed by the Pres^duig Of&cer, ladustrial Disputes Act, Labour Court, Dui^ ia casejNo.l4/I.D./Reference/98. Against thc ordcr of reiuqval, fhc respondcnt Lahuan had approacbed fhe Assistaat Labcjur Conunissioner. However, as 1 —. . no conciliation could be broujght about a failtire report was subinitted, thereupon the appippriate govenunent being of the opuuon;3B§feaeAthataa iadustijial dispute did exist, referred the same for adjudication by fhe laboxu- Court.
Tbe question for iBi-iissiagft ISSSvl- adjudication was 'TRT ^ft crtld^ sn» '(y'l'c;^ '^ ^gr yraq5;tcf^nr ^r ^9 ^RT t ? ^ ?l€t ^t ^ f^H •M^l^?!! c^ ^ra' t '?? ^H vsssf ^ Pi^uiH ^t ??rr f?r$?( f^ ^riT^ ^7fi"& i" "CmM-'i. -+ ^nm^w, ^TRTTS, Tqciray iNdS »*<!ej-< MS.:.'!^o..:.lSS.l).9-f:o).. FT 200 ^i^i ^y.^ {'l^ll^q^ 'RFTR? ^ W, s^^ 'w^^ ^aiw «Ti?g3?R?r —-2^ OnSeu^noticedTy fheTT^Bour (^iut, %T;>feift;!'lTItRff'cf fe?t tfiR?TC i i73ifgiT3fftn 'EoB5—EE~^iiGes— rS;ll^ filed their claim. Accordiug to IIie einployee, he was appoiated as a Chowkidar on 01-12-13 90 and that wifh efifect fiom 08-01-1992, he was regularizet^ aud hc was pajd regular wages, which were payable to a permqnent eiaptoyee. His grievaace is fhat on 10-06-1996, he was removed fioin semce without holduig any doincstic aad in contravcntion of thc provisions containcd ia Sectioq 25(F) ofthc Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As such, his reincjval was uulawful/illegal aad he was entiUed to reiastatenient wipi back wages.
The second party filed 4 written statemcnt dcnying fhe claiin. However, though the first party/employee entered fhe witness box aad gave his stete|nent in support ofbis case, the sccond party that is, the pctititaer hcrein faUcd to appcar aad i "' adduce any cvidcncc in suppor^ of his dcfencc. Accordingty, fhe Industrial Court accepted fhfe un-rebutted cvidencc of thc einployee aad held in his favodr. The Industrial Cotirt held the order of reinoval to be void an' directed reiastatecuent without back wages. _.L—, ^SSi^-ft.^^m i-HC—78 ^SSI ^|A||d<<, 8\-)|'M<|(c, T^fRTER ..J^K.^^ S.TOT T] f?TO? aan sns^ »1< W -3- '*i«f[<rt<ft!T ^Mvfi i! TSCSi TfsF ^ stRn 3nt?i Having heaid leamed couiisel, fhe Court is not iacUned to entertaui this writ petition. Si^ice, fhe second party (petitioner !i3<rt hereia) did not appear before J the Coi.ut to tead evidence ia 1 support of his contentions and ^o rebut that of the employee, no error can be said to have beeu|conuiutted by fbe Labour Court ia accepting fhe un-rebutted/unchaUenged evidencc of the petitioner. j In view of fhe above, thej petition fajls and is disinissed. Consequeatfy, M.W.P.No.334/2p02 and I.A.No, 6575/2002 also staad disposed of. P. C. Naik Judge i.iriit.hy !" r—'
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Chhattisgarh High Court, on 07 Oct 2002.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.