Labour Law

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

— Ss. 11-A, 25-F and 25-B — Relief under S. 11-A — Nature of, and preconditions for grant of reinstatement — Relief under S. 11-A, held, discretionary — Hence, should be granted not automatically but after considering the peculiar facts of each case including the nature and purpose of the appointment, the duration/ tenure of the work and the question whether the post was a sanctioned one — That it is lawful to grant reinstatement with back wages does not mean that the same should be granted automatically — In the present case, the appointment of the respondent workman was not in a sanctioned post and was made at the instance of a Minister dehors the rules and in violation of Arts. 14 and 16 while the employer Municipal Council was a <169>State" within the meaning of Art. 12 — Hence, the said appointment, held, void — Therefore, for termination of his service without complying with S. 25-F, held, the appropriate relief was grant of monetary compensation (Rs 50,000 in this case) and not reinstatement with back wages, (2006) 5 SCC 173-A

Constitution of India

— Art. 226 — Writs — Certiorari — Conditions for issue of — Error apparent on face of record — Held, writ of certiorari can be issued in case of such an error, (2006) 5 SCC 173-B

Labour Law

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

— Ss. 25-F and 25-B — Completion of the requisite statutory period of service — Onus to prove, held, lies on the workman — It is not for the management to prove the contrary, (2006) 5 SCC 173-C

Labour Law

Reinstatement/Back wages/Arrears

— Back wages — Entitlement to — Onus to prove that he was not gainfully employed, held, lay on the workman, (2006) 5 SCC 173-D

Labour Law

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

— Ss. 25-F and 25-B — Completion of the requisite statutory period of service — Appreciation of evidence regarding — Non-production of some of documents, if could lead to an adverse inference — Where the workman had not called for the records from the management but the management had itself produced attendance records of part of the relevant period, held, its omission to produce the records for the remaining period would not lead to an adverse inference against it, (2006) 5 SCC 173-E