Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sukha Ram Vs. Executive Engineer, I.G.N.P. and anr.

Sukha Ram vs Executive Engineer, I.G.N.P. and anr.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Nov 22, 1999
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/762891

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
S.B.C.W.P. No. 4736/1993
Subject
Labour and Industrial
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Labour and Industrial
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed
Acts & sections
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 25F

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sukha Ram

Advocate Mr. D.K. Parihar

Respondent

Executive Engineer, I.G.N.P. and anr.

Legal References

Acts
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 25F
Reported In
(2000)IIILLJ1473Raj

Excerpt

- n.n. mathur, j.1. this writ petition is directed against the award dated may 10, 1993 passed by the labour court whereby the reference made by the state government has been answered in negative holding that the order of termination of the petitioner workman is not illegal.2. the necessary facts are that in the month of march, 1985. the petitioner was engaged on the daily wages basis @ rs. 12 per day as 'chowkidar'. his services were terminated on september 13, 1986. it was contended before the labour court that the termination was in violation of section 25-f of the industrial disputes act inasmuch as he was not being paid one month's compensation. on appreciation of material on record, the labour court found that the petitioner workman admitted that at the time of termination on september 13, 1986, he was paid compensation. in view of this, the labour court found no infirmity in the order of termination.3. it is contended by mr. d.k. parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner that mr. rajender prasad an executive engineer, has stated in the affidavit that the petitioner was given notice on august 30, 1986 and he was paid the compensation on october 1, 1986 as such, the petitioner was not paid the compensation at the time of termination. in my view, there is no substance in the contention as the petitioner himself has admitted that at the time of termination he was paid compensation.4. in view of the aforesaid, i find no merit in this writ petition. the same is accordingly, rejected.

Full Judgment

N.N. Mathur, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the award dated May 10, 1993 passed by the Labour Court whereby the reference made by the State Government has been answered in negative holding that the order of termination of the petitioner workman is not illegal.

2. The necessary facts are that in the month of March, 1985. The petitioner was engaged on the daily wages basis @ Rs. 12 per day as 'Chowkidar'. His services were terminated on September 13, 1986. It was contended before the Labour Court that the termination was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act inasmuch as he was not being paid one month's compensation. On appreciation of material on record, the Labour Court found that the petitioner workman admitted that at the time of termination on September 13, 1986, he was paid compensation. In view of this, the Labour Court found no infirmity in the order of termination.

3. It is contended by Mr. D.K. Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner that Mr. Rajender Prasad an Executive Engineer, has stated in the affidavit that the petitioner was given notice on August 30, 1986 and he was paid the compensation on October 1, 1986 as such, the petitioner was not paid the compensation at the time of termination. In my view, there is no substance in the contention as the petitioner himself has admitted that at the time of termination he was paid compensation.

4. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this writ petition. The same is accordingly, rejected.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial