Labour Law

Daily wager

— Disengagement of — Validity — Workman not appointed to any regular post but engaged on the basis of need of work on day-to-day basis, held, had no right to the post — Hence, his disengagement on acquiring a qualification exceeding the maximum prescribed, held, could not be treated as arbitrary or amounting to wrongful dismissal within the meaning of Item 3 of Sch. II to Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — High Court erred in holding otherwise, (2006) 6 SCC 221-A

Labour Law

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

— Ss. 25-G and 25-F — Applicability of S. 25-G — Where High Court had not found the workman to have been retrenched within the meaning of S. 25-F, held, it erred in holding S. 25-G to be applicable, (2006) 6 SCC 221-B

Labour Law

Reinstatement/Back wages/Arrears

— Reinstatement with back wages — Factors to be considered before grant of — Held, High Court erred in granting such relief without considering whether the discharged workman was gainfully employed during the relevant period — Moreover, it overlooked that he was not entitled to back wages on the principle of `no work no pay', (2006) 6 SCC 221-C

Labour Law

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

— Ss. 25-F and 25-B — Statutory period of continuous service if on facts completed — Workman claiming to have completed the requisite period of service — Employer Bank contradicting him and in the statement filed before Labour Court stating that the workman had worked for a smaller period (58 days in this case) — No cross-examination by the workman on this point — Held, the workman had not completed the requisite length of service, (2006) 6 SCC 221-D

Labour Law

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

— S. 10 — Reference — Laches — Stale dispute — Reference of — Validity — Discharge of the workman effected 13 long years ago, held, could not be a subject-matter of reference, (2006) 6 SCC 221-E

Constitution of India

— Arts. 226, 14 & 16 — Nature and scope of Art. 226 — Labour/Service matters — Labour matters — Jurisdiction — Peon-cum-Farash engaged on day-to-day basis — Employer Bank excluding his name from the approved list on acquisition of a qualification exceeding the prescribed maximum — Government referring the dispute to Labour Court — No plea raised in the writ petition or in the claim statement filed before Tribunal that the impugned action was contrary to Arts. 14 and 16 — In such circumstances, held, High Court erred in examining the legality of the policy behind the exclusion and granting relief on the ground that the said policy was contrary to Arts. 14 and 16, (2006) 6 SCC 221-F