Twelve respondents instituted a civil suit before the Senior Sub-Judge against the employer's action of their termination and retrenchment from service. The reliefs they claimed in the suit consists in the: Declaration t
CS Professional · Labour Laws & Practice · PYQS · June 2023
Twelve respondents instituted a civil suit before the Senior Sub-Judge against the employer's action of their termination and retrenchment from service. The reliefs they claimed in the suit consists in the: Declaration to the effect that the orders of their termination or retrenchment from service were illegal, and Entitlement against the retrenchment with back wages. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs-respondents were skilled workers working in a hydel project in Alandpur in various capacities such as T. Mate, Mixer Operator, Beldar etc. for more than 5 years and therefore as per the standing orders and the rules, they were regular employees of the defendants. It was alleged that the defendant-appellants did not maintain any seniority list of the workers and different categories of services on the said project and they arbitrarily removed the plaintiffs-respondents from service by obtaining their signatures on papers under coercion and force and also forcing them to accept payments. It was further alleged that the defendant-appellants while removing plaintiffs-respondents did not comply with seniority criteria. As a result, juniors were retained in service and seniors were retrenched. It was alleged that the action was discriminatory and contrary to law resulting in victimization. This claim of the plaintiffs-respondents was contested by the defendant-appellants on the grounds that common suit could not have been filed since the cause of action of each defendant was distinct and separate; the plaintiffs-respondents were appointed on purely temporary basis and after the completion of the project, their services were validly terminated. On the contrary, the plaintiffs-respondents claimed injunction and reinstatement. On the diligent perusal of the above case, answer the following questions referring to legal provisions and decided case law, if any: Whether plaintiffs-respondents are entitled to declaration and injunction ?
Answer & Explanation:
According to Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947, where any employer retrenches, or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute. In the case of The Premier Automobiles Ltd. & Ors. vs. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay & Ors. [(1976) 1 SCC 496] , the court culled out following four principles: If the dispute is neither an individual dispute, nor it relates to enforcement of any other right under the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947, the remedy lies only in the civil court. If the dispute is an industrial dispute arising out of a right or liability under the general or common law and not under the Act, the jurisdiction of the civil court is alternative, leaving it to the election of the senior concerned to choose his remedy for the relief which is competent to be granted in a particular remedy. If the industrial dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation created under the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947 then the only remedy available to the suiter is to get the adjudication under the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947. If the right which is sought to be enforced is a right created under the Act such as Chapter VA then the remedy for its enforcement is either Section 33C or the raising of an industrial dispute, as the case may be. Since the relief claimed for reinstatement with back wages hence, this could only be available to plaintiffs-respondents under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The civil courts jurisdiction was barred and therefore they are not entitled to declaration and injunction.
Topics: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Related Questions in this Topic
- Vijaykanth and Amar Jha were in the employment as driver in a university. The university later found that operating the ...
- Vijaykanth and Amar Jha were in the employment as driver in a university. The university later found that operating the ...
- Bharath, the Managing Director of a company unilaterally announced the target in the Production Section that 9000 units ...
- Kiran, the Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the workman), was appointed in 2011 as a helper in TVS Auto Ltd. (here...
- Kiran, the Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the workman), was appointed in 2011 as a helper in TVS Auto Ltd. (here...