Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Santram Spinners Limited Vs Babubhai Magandas Patel (Gujarat High Court)
Appeal Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 10741 of 2008
Date of Judgement/Order : 05/08/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Santram Spinners Limited Vs Babubhai Magandas Patel (Gujarat High Court)

1. The present petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the  Constitution of India is filed by the company – original petitioner, challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 30.11.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, learned Labour Court, Kalol (District: Mehsana) in Reference (LCK) No.357 of 1997, by which the learned Labour Court has reinstated the respondent – workman in service with continuity of service along with 20% back wages.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 The respondent – workman has raised an industrial dispute inter alia claiming that he was working with the petitioner company in Spinning Department as a Technical Maintenance In-charge and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. It was further the case of the respondent that he came to be terminated orally on 18.04.1997. Thereafter, the respondent – workman has filed statement of claim and a copy of statement of claim is annexed herewith and therefore, the petitioner has appeared and has filed its written statement to the statement of claim, which is filed by the respondent – workman and has pointed out the true and correct facts before the learned Labour Court. It was further pointed out by the petitioner that the respondent – workman cannot be termed as workman within the meaning of Section 2(S) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It was pointed out before the learned Labour Court that the respondent – workman was working as a maintenance consultant and was paid consultant fees but he was never employed by the petitioner in fact he was working as a consultant on contract basis.

2.2 The respondent – workman did not produce any documentary evidence; such as appointment letter, wages slip etc., to show that there was employer – employee relationship. Further, the petitioner – company has produced various documentary evidence; such as Bills, TDS statement, etc., before the learned Labour Court to show that the respondent – workman was working as consultant.

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
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031