Nagar Panchayat Rayya v. Kuldip Kaur & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 s. 2(00)(bb)
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 26.5.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, in CWP No. 7355 of 2009, upholding the award…
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Munish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the appellant.
To be referred to the Reporters or not?
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 26.5.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, in CWP No. 7355 of 2009, upholding the award dated 19.11.2007 (P-5), passed by the Labour Court, Amritsar. Accordingly, the Labour Court answered the reference in favour of the workman holding her entitled to reinstatement in service with back wages. The findings recorded by the Labour Court would show that the workman was removed from service for her alleged misconduct, which was specifically pleaded in the demand notice as well as in the statement of claim.
2. Learned Single Judge after extensively quoting from the award of the Labour Court has reached the conclusion that in the absence of any inquiry, the respondent-workman could not be removed from service. The foundation of the action taken against the workman has been found to be her LPA No. 1088 of 2010 (O&M) 2 absence from duty. The argument that there was no post available and provisions of Section 2(00)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are attracted, has been repelled by the Labour Court holding that the workman- respondent was removed from service on 1.4.1997, whereas circular letter dated 7.1.1997 (Ex. R-4) was received by the Management-appellant on
21.4.1997. The aforesaid letter could have given a cause for the Management-appellant to dispense with the services of the workman for want of post but her services had already been dispensed with on 1.4.1997. Therefore, the letter dated 7.1.1997, which showed non-existence of the post, cannot constitute a basis for dispensing with the services of the workman, which had happened on 1.4.1997. Even on that account, the Management-appellant has no cause. There is no merit in the instant appeal. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE August 31, 2010 Pkapoor
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 2(00)(bb).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 31 Aug 2010. The bench was M M KUMAR, RITU BAHRI.
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.