Decided on October 04,2016

Hetal Desai Respondents


K.M.Thaker, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Clerk, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. D.N. Thakkar, learned advocate for the respondent.
(2.) The petitioner company has taken out this petition against two orders where concurrent findings of fact are recorded. The judgment and order passed by learned Labour Court is confirmed by the learned Appellate Court while deciding statutory appeal.
(3.) So far as factual background is concerned it has emerged from the submissions by the learned advocates for the petitioner and respondent and from the record that the respondent herein raised dispute against termination of her service. 3.1 The respondent filed application before learned Labour Court which was registered as T. Application No. 826/1993 wherein she alleged that her service came to be terminated in violation of principles of natural justice and without following procedure prescribed by law. She alleged that she was abruptly terminated by the employer without serving any notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation and without granting opportunity of hearing. She also claimed that her service was terminated without any fault on her part and she prayed that the termination from service may be set aside and the opponent should be directed to reinstate her in service with consequential benefits. The application was registered as TApplication No. 826 of 1993. 3.2 The opponent opposed the allegation by the claimant and also opposed the relief prayed for by the claimant. In its written statement the opponent company claimed that the claimant was negligent and irresponsible in performance of her duty and function and that she committed several mistakes. The company also alleged that despite repeated instruction and warnings her performance did not improve and therefore company was constrained to terminate her service by paying notice pay. Undisputedly, the company did not conduct domestic inquiry before terminating respondent's service. It is also not in dispute that the company did not pay retrenchment compensation at the time when her service was terminated and the company emphasized inefficiency and negligence in performance in duty as reason for termination of her service. 3.3 The learned Labour Court adjudicated application No. 826 of 1993. After the stage of pleadings was concluded the parties led documentary as well as oral evidence. Learned labour Court considered the evidence on record and after adjudicating the application and after considering submissions by the learned advocates for the contesting parties learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the claimant's service was terminated illegally. The learned Labour Court passed judgment dated 22.5.2000 and directed the company to reinstate respondent on her original post with continuity of service and full backwages. 3.4 Feeling aggrieved by said judgment and order by the learned Labour Court, the company filed appeal before learned Industrial Court. Learned Industrial Court registered the appeal as Appeal (IC) No. 15/2000. After hearing the parties learned Appellate Court reached to the conclusion that the judgment and order passed by the learned Labour Court is not erroneous and it does not suffer from any infirmity. Learned Industrial Court, therefore, confirmed the findings and conclusion recorded by the learned Labour Court. Learned Industrial Court also confirmed the direction passed by the learned Labour Court. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decision by the Industrial Court, company has taken out present petition.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.