Dismissed

Itegral Urban Co. Op Bank Anr. v. Raveti Raman Gupta and Anr.

Rajasthan HC2 May 2012CW/7806/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenging the Labour Court's award holding the respondent's retrenchment illegal under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the writ petition sought to prove self-abandonment. The court found the petitioner failed to prove abandonment and the Labour Court's order was just.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and stay application dismissed; Labour Court's award and reinstatement order with back wages upheld.

Itegral Urban Co. Op Bank Anr. Vs Raveti… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2012)

¶1

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7806/2011 Integral Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. Versus Raveti Raman Gupta & Anr.

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7806/2011 Integral Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. Versus

¶5

Raveti Raman Gupta & Anr.

¶6

Date of Order :: 02^nd May, 2012

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶8

None is present for the petitioners.

¶9

By the Court:

¶10

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the award of Labour Court dated 11.02.2010 (Annex.3) whereby reference has been answered in favour of the respondentworkman.

¶11

Learned Labour Court came to conclusion that retrenchment of employee was in violation of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act of 1947”). According to petitioners, it is a case of self abandonment, however, the fact aforesaid was not decided by the Labour Court.

¶12

I find that so far as respondent-workman is concerned, he could make out his case regarding illegal

¶13

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7806/2011 Integral Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. Versus Raveti Raman Gupta & Anr. 2

¶14

retrenchment, as it was without complying with the provisions of the Act of 1947. He had worked for more than 690 days before retrenchment. So far as question of abandonment of service is concerned, it was for the petitioners to prove, however, no cogent evidence could be brought to prove case of self abandonment. Looking to above facts, finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court calls for no interference. This is moreso when, no manifest error exists therein. The respondent-workman has been reinstated denying backwages, thus award of Labour Court is just and proper.

¶15

In the light of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, hence, the same is dismissed, so as the stay application.

¶16

(M.N. BHANDARI), J.

¶17

Preety, Jr.P.A.

¶18

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

¶19

Preety Asopa Jr.P.A.

Itegral Urban Co. Op Bank Anr. v. Raveti Raman Gupta and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Itegral Urban Co. Op Bank Anr. v. Raveti Raman Gupta and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murari Lal Vs the Labour Court and Ors.

Smt Usha Devi Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Mubarik Ali Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Dulli Chand Sharma Vs State Educataion Departmentors

Gyasi Ram Vs State Educataion Departmentors

Mohan Singh Vs State Agriculture Depand Anr.