Industrial Disputes Act – Employer’s Failure to Assign Work to Employee Deemed Retrenchment: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Contents News/Article Date: 15th August 2023
Relating to which Act: The Industrial Disputes Act 1947
Penalty under the Act: Any person who instigates or incites others to take part in, or otherwise acts in furtherance of, a strike or lock-out which is illegal under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Applicable to which State: Whole of India
Type:
Case Title: MANAGING DIRECTOR JK HANDICRAFTS Vs AGA SYED MUSTAFA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 215
Pertains to: The bench was hearing an appeal by the petitioner corporation against an award passed by the Industrial tribunal whereby the termination of services of the respondent employee.
Relevance of this news: Karma Global is in the business of HR Services, Payroll, Outsourcing and Regulatory Compliances right from its inception in 2004 and since then, has brought in a lot of efficiencies and technological upgradations with experts on its roll, to ease the hassles of Payroll Processing, Temp Staffing, On-boarding, Employee Life Cycle, Statutory, Regulatory and Payroll compliances by providing customized solutions to all its elite clients.
Karma Global has set up its offices in UK, USA, UAE, Canada and South East Asia and is fully into providing solutions for workplace issues, employment law advice, immigration and negotiation, representation in employment tribunals and involvement in leading cases, addressing HR issues in line with Labour Laws, payroll, staffing and talent acquisition.
Karma Global is fully in to regulatory compliances and its entire team is fully well versed with all labour laws including employee’s compensation act and in connection with court cases and legalities, it has an alliance with renowned Advocate Sundeep Puri & Associates.
And in the current instance: The petitioner claimed that the respondent abandoned his services, while the respondent contended he was not given further posting orders despite joining. After legal notices and unsuccessful attempts for adjustment, the respondent approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner, leading to a dispute referred to an Industrial Tribunal.
Initially, the Tribunal ruled in favour of the petitioner, but a subsequent writ petition challenged the decision. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. In response to the remand, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent’s termination was illegal citing non-compliance with relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It thus ruled in favour of the respondent, ordering his reinstatement with notional benefits.
Thus, the Court held that the manner in which the respondent was not adjusted by the petitioner Corporation after the Centre at Wathoora was closed down amounted to his retrenchment and hence attracted not fulfilled the requirement of Section 25F of the Act while putting an end to the services of the respondent.
As such, the Court concluded that the respondent’s claim of retrenchment was valid, and the Tribunal’s award directing reinstatement was justifiable and fell within its jurisdiction.
Subject: Industrial Disputes Act | Employer’s Failure to Assign Work to Employee Deemed Retrenchment: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Appended is the complete news item
Industrial Disputes Act | Employer’s Failure to Assign Work to Employee Deemed Retrenchment: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has recently ruled that even if an employer corporation does not explicitly issue a termination order, its behaviour of not assigning work to an employee while doing so for others can still be considered as retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947.
Justice Sanjay Dhar added that any cessation of a workman’s service, apart from voluntary retirement, reaching superannuation, or termination due to ill health, is encompassed within the definition of retrenchment.
The bench was hearing an appeal by the petitioner corporation against an award passed by the Industrial tribunal whereby the termination of services of the respondent employee had been quashed and the petitioner had been directed to reinstate the said respondent forthwith.
In 1982, the petitioner engaged the respondent as Assistant Craftsman for a fixed term. After being initially posted at Aalikadal and later transferred to Wathoora, the respondent was directed to report to the head office upon the centre’s closure.
The petitioner claimed that the respondent abandoned his services, while the respondent contended he was not given further posting orders despite joining. After legal notices and unsuccessful attempts for adjustment, the respondent approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner, leading to a dispute referred to an Industrial Tribunal.
Initially, the Tribunal ruled in favour of the petitioner, but a subsequent writ petition challenged the decision. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. In response to the remand, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent’s termination was illegal citing non-compliance with relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It thus ruled in favour of the respondent, ordering his reinstatement with notional benefits.
Thus, the Court held that the manner in which the respondent was not adjusted by the petitioner Corporation after the Centre at Wathoora was closed down amounted to his retrenchment and hence attracted not fulfilled the requirement of Section 25F of the Act while putting an end to the services of the respondent.
As such, the Court concluded that the respondent’s claim of retrenchment was valid, and the Tribunal’s award directing reinstatement was justifiable and fell within its jurisdiction.
The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Case Title: MANAGING DIRECTOR JK HANDICRAFTS Vs AGA SYED MUSTAFA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 215