Judgment · High Court · 2006
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Judgment
HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Shyam Ladrecha, AGA for the petitioner. Mr. M.C. Bishnoi for the petitioner/s. By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to the award dated 06.02.2002 passed by Labour Court, Jodhpur in Labour Case No.12/99. In brief, facts of the case are that the appropriate government by its notification dated 04.12.98 referred an industrial dispute to Labour Court, Jodhpur for its adjudication in following terms: “क(cid:2)(cid:3) न(cid:6)(cid:2)(cid:7)जक सह(cid:3)(cid:2)क अन(cid:13)(cid:2)न(cid:15)(cid:3), ज(cid:6) स(cid:17)(cid:3)0 अन(cid:13)0 व(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:3)ग, (cid:13)(cid:7)प(cid:3)लगढ जजल(cid:3) ज(cid:7)धप(cid:25)र द(cid:3)र(cid:3) शन(cid:29)क श(cid:30) (cid:29)(cid:7)ह(cid:6)र(cid:3)(cid:29) प(cid:25)त श(cid:30) ह र(cid:3)र(cid:3)(cid:29), पद ह"लपर न(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:3)स(cid:30) ग(cid:3)$(cid:17) प(cid:7)स% र(cid:15)क(cid:25) ड’(cid:2)(cid:3) (cid:15)हस(cid:30)ल (cid:13)(cid:7)प(cid:3)लगढ जजल(cid:3) ज(cid:7)धप(cid:25)र क(cid:7) डद(cid:6)(cid:3)$क 1-4-89 स( स((cid:17)(cid:3) स( प)थक कर(cid:6)(cid:3) उन,(cid:15) ए(cid:17)$ (cid:17)"ध ह"?
(cid:2)डद (cid:6)ह $ (cid:15)(cid:7) शन(cid:29)क डकस र(cid:3)ह(cid:15) क(cid:7) प(cid:3)(cid:6)( क(cid:3) अनधक(cid:3)र ह"?” Learned Labour Court considering all the evidence available on record, held that after discontinuing the respondent workman Mohan Ram from service, the employer employed S/Sh. Khumaram, Rampratap Singh and Hukmaram without considering the candidature of the workman. 2 A specific finding is given by the Labour Court that while effecting retrenchment of the workman, there was violation of provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On basis of the findings above, learned Labour Court held termination of the workman illegal and ordered for his reinstatement in service with back wages to the extent of 25%. Heard counsel for the petitioner. At the outset, it is stated by counsel for the parties that in compliance of the award dated 06.02.2002, the workman has already been reinstated subject to decision of this writ petition.
From perusal of the award impugned, it is apparent that the findings given by the labour court are based on sound appreciation of evidence available on record. It is not at all in dispute that S/Sh. Khumaram, Rampratap Singh and Hukmaram were employed by the petitioner employer after discontinuing the workman from service. The finding given by the labour court does not warrant any interference by this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly this petition for writ is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 06 Sep 2006. The bench was BLE GOVIND MATHUR.
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.