Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Jamnagar Municipal Corporation Vs Avdesh Kishorbhai Solanki (Gujrat High Court)
Appeal Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 10126 of 2018
Date of Judgement/Order : 25/07/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Jamnagar Municipal Corporation Vs Avdesh Kishorbhai Solanki (Gujrat High Court)

SC held that practice of engaging workman by separate but consecutive appointment orders of short duration with a view to opposing workman’s claim is not recognised by clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947.

SC held that practice of engaging workman by separate but consecutive appointment orders of short duration with a view to opposing workman’s claim about continuity in service by citing separate appointment orders giving artificial breaks between two phase of appointments is unjust and runs counter to the object of the provision and such practice has been repeatedly deprecated by Courts. By adopting such practice, the employer actually engages the workman continuously but with a view to establishing that the person was engaged intermittently and was not engaged continuously, separate orders for short duration are issued and/or artificial breaks are given by issuing appointment letters for 3 months or 6 months duration or in some case 1 year tenure and in some cases appointment orders are issued for tenure f 29 days (then break of one or two days is given) and the same workman is again appointed. In such arrangement, the appointment which, in reality and in actual effect, is continuous, is artificially interjected by such facade or smoke screen of separate orders despite the fact that the work, for which the person is engaged, continues and the need for engaging the workman also continues. Such action of engaging the workman in such manner and then abruptly discontinuing the person, would not fall within the purview of clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) and such practice cannot get protection of the principle of fixed term appointment recognised by clause (bb) of Section 2(oo)(bb).

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT

1. RULE. Learned Advocate Mr.Yogen Pandya waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031