Dismissed

State of Haryan and Ors. v. Anil Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Aug 2010LPA/942/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed appeals against a Single Judge's order. The Court upheld the Labour Court's finding that the retrenchment violated Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but denied reinstatement due to financial stringency, awarding Rs.1,25,000 compensation.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs. 1,25,000 granted to the workman in lieu of reinstatement; all appeals dismissed.

State of Haryan and Ors. Vs Anil… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

LPA No. 942 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

LPA No. 942 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision 9 .8.2010

¶5

State of Haryana and others

... Appellants

Versus

Anil Kumar

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL

¶11

Present: Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, AAG Hy. for the appellant

¶12

1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶13

2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?

¶14

M.M.KUMAR, J.

¶15

This order shall dispose of L.P.A. Nos. 942 to 944 of 2010 which are directed against common order dated 30.7.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. It has been held that there was patent violation of provisions of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act,1947 while passing the order of retrenchment and therefore the retrenchment of the workman was bad in the eyes of law. The findings recorded by the Labour Court to that effect have been upheld. It has also been found as a fact that the retrenchment was ordered on account of financial stringency and the relief of reinstatement could not be granted to the workmanrespondent. Accordingly, compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- has been granted to the workman- respondent.

¶16

Having heard the learned State counsel at a considerable length, we find that the findings of the Labour Court as upheld by the learned Single Judge are supported by evidence. We are satisfied that the

¶17

¶18

LPA No. 942 of 2010

¶19

retrenchment of the workman- respondent was in violation of Section 25F of the Act and therefore it has rightly been set aside. It is also well settled that in case of financial stringency the relief of reinstatement cannot be granted to a workman and therefore adequate amount of compensation in lieu of reinstatement has been granted. There is no merit in the appeal.

¶20

As a sequel to the above discussion, all the three appeals fail and the same are dismissed.

¶21

A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected appeals.

¶22

(M.M.Kumar) Judge

¶23

(A. N. Jindal ) 9 .8.2010 Judge

¶24

okg

State of Haryan and Ors. v. Anil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryan and Ors. v. Anil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs Sutinder Prasher and Ors.

Swaran Kaur and Another Vs C.a.T., Chandigarh Bench, Chd. through Its Registrar and Ors.

Badan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Surat Ram Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Naresh Kumar and Anr. Vs Sneh Gupta and Anr.

Kiran Gupta Vs Licencing Officer Cum Tehsildar and Anr.