NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

Erroneous Reinstatement of Employee Unsustainable in Law: Karnataka High

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Karnataka High Court, in a judgment rendered by The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Mulimani, has quashed an award issued by the Labour Court. The case involved a dispute regarding the termination and subsequent regularization of service of the respondent.

The High Court’s decision, delivered on November 29, 2023, hinged on the crucial legal point that the Industrial Tribunal had previously rejected the reference, stating that the respondent was not a workman, and the Executive Engineer, Zilla Panchayat, did not qualify as an industry. The Labour Court, however, failed to consider this rejection and issued an erroneous reinstatement order.

Justice Jyoti Mulimani, in the court’s observations, emphasized the unsustainability of the Labour Court’s decision in law, stating, “The award of the Labour Court is contrary to the law laid down by this Court. Furthermore, the Labour Court, exercising power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot grant relief of reinstatement that amounts to regularization and appointment to the non-existing post, which is otherwise not permitted in law.”

The Writ of Certiorari was ordered by the High Court, leading to the quashing of the award dated July 11, 2011, passed by the Labour Court in Industrial Disputes No. 125/2003.

This decision by the Karnataka High Court reaffirms the importance of adhering to established legal principles and ensuring that labor disputes are adjudicated in accordance with the law. The judgment serves as a reminder of the significance of correctly interpreting statutory definitions and following precedent in legal proceedings.

Date of Decision: November 29, 2023

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYATRAJ ENGINEERING DIVISION VS D.BASAVARAJ       

Latest Legal News