Single Judge awarded compensation to a retired workman despite closure of the undertaking because reinstatement was impossible. High Court upheld the view, holding that uninformed due to job nature and no unemployment evidence, compensation is appropriate.
Compensation of Rs.75,000 awarded to workman was upheld; appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
L.P.A. No.353 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.5.2010
Mohinder Pal.
-----Appellant
Vs.
Presidiing Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others.
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
Present:Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.
ORDER:
LPA No.353 of 2010
2
backwages.
LPA No.353 of 2010
3
interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge.
( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE
May 18, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether reinstatement and backwages follow automatically upon violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 when the employer is closed with no unemployment evidence.
Whether the single judge was justified in awarding compensation instead of reinstatement.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the single judge's view given the facts of the case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MOHINDER PAL
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, PATIALA & OTHERS
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
ALOK SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
