Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Of Registered Agreement To Sell Is No Longer Discretionary Post-2018 Amendment: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Determine If Tenanted Property Belongs To Joint Family Even If Tenancy Order Stands In Individual Karta's Name: Bombay High Court Notice Under Section 107 BNSS Mandatory Before Attaching Property; Right To Property Is A Constitutional Right: Calcutta High Court Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS Criminal Courts Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Inheritance Disputes Over Appreciated Land Values: Gujarat High Court Quashes Fraud Case Accused Must Raise Probable Defence To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Undisputed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Convenience Of Family And Accused Paramount For Jail Shifting; Trial Court Can't Reject Application Merely For Non-Residency: J&K High Court Litigants Who Attempt To Pollute The Stream Of Justice With Tainted Hands Are Not Entitled To Any Relief: Karnataka High Court Trial Court Must Implement Modified Preliminary Decree In Full: Telangana High Court Directs Partition Of Property Omitted In Final Decree Proceedings If Grievance Is Real But Lies Before Different Forum, Plaint Should Be Returned Under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, Not Rejected: Rajasthan High Court

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