Bombay HC: Wife Humiliating Husband in Front of His Friends is Amounts to Cruelty  ||  Delhi HC Interprets Doctrine of “Compelled Self-Publication”,  ||  Del. HC Issues Summons to Campus Sutra in Trademark Infringement Suit Filed by Footwear Brand Campus  ||  Bombay HC Dismisses PIL Seeking Restraining Order against PRADA  ||  Delhi HC: Cannot Bypass Bar on Revision of Interlocutory Order by Invoking Inherent Jurisdiction  ||  Delhi HC: Prosecutrix’s Refusal to Undergo Medical Examination Weakens the Case  ||  Bom. HC: No Provision under JJ Act that Allows Adoption of a Child of Foreign Citizenship  ||  SC Passes Order to Prevent Russian Mother’s Attempt to Flee with Child  ||  SC: Deprivation of Natural Heir from Will May Not Raise Suspicion  ||  SC: Denying Female Heir Right in Property Only Exacerbates Gender Division    

S.C. Srinivasan vs. The Presiding Officer - (High Court of Madras) (30 Jul 2024)

Writ Court while exercising the power of judicial review may interfere, if order has been passed by an incompetent authority or without following the principles of natural justice

MANU/TN/4056/2024

Service

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the Award and to quash the same in so far asdismissing the petitioner claim for reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner.

Whenever a writ petition is filed against the order of the Authority, the Writ Court while exercising the power of judicial review may interfere with the said order, if such order has been passed by an incompetent Authority or if such order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice, besides when the order of the Authority is unreasonable, arbitrary and perverse. Except the circumstances enumerated hereinabove, the Writ Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence as an Appellate Authority and give a different finding.

It is amply clear that the finding recorded by the Labour Court that, the Petitioner was working continuously for more than 240 days in a year, and that he was retrenched without following the procedure contemplated under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) is perfectly in order. Once the retrenchment is not in accordance with the provisions of the ID Act, then the termination became illegal and as a sequel, this workman is entitled for a reinstatement. However, the Labour Court on some justifiable reason, in lieu of reinstatement, awarded compensation. As rightly observed by the Labour Court, the decision of the Management not to provide work that too in a public transport as a driver, where he has caused a fatal accident, is perfectly justifiable and only in that background, the Labour Court has also not ordered for reinstatement.

Therefore, the contention raised by the workman that he must be reinstated in the respondent-Management cannot be countenanced as his past conduct goes counter to his request. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the well considered order of the Labour Court. Petitions dismissed.

Tags : AWARD   REINSTATEMENT CLAIM   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved