Effective relief can be given to the worker only if the permanent address of the worker is given in the petition: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday said that effective relief can be given to an employee only if the permanent address of the workman is given in the plea.

Effective relief can be given to the worker only if the permanent address of the worker is given in the petition: Supreme Court

Noting that if a party approaches an authority for any relief, it is first necessary to give its complete address, the top court said that in all pending cases and cases to be filed in the future, the parties should give their permanent address. The address has to be submitted. ,

A bench of Justices A S Oka and Rajesh Bindal delivered its verdict on an appeal filed by a firm against the June 2010 order of the Bombay High Court in a matter relating to the reinstatement of an employee.

The top court noted that the October 2005 order of the labor court, which directed the employee to be reinstated with full back pay with the continuation of service from December 8, 1997, showed that his address was through a union And he didn't give his address. ,

“This is a case in which the permanent address of the workman has not been mentioned. The given address is Care of Union. All efforts made to serve him at the given address remained in vain,” the bench said.

Lastly, it said, the service was done at the address of the union, which may not be interested in pursuing the matter on its behalf.

"Before quashing the order, this court wishes to direct the officers dealing with various labor laws to take certain corrective steps," the bench said. The worker is equipped with arguments. Parliament consolidates 29 labor laws under four categories of codes, asks the apex court to simplify labor laws and strengthen protections available to workers, including unorganized workers in terms of statutory minimum wages, social security and health care Code on Wages, 2019, Code on Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions, 2020, Code on Industrial Relations, 2020 and Code on Social Security, 2020.

“The above codes are yet to be implemented. With the four Labor Codes coming into force, we hope that in the future, when rules are framed, the authorities will take care that the parties to the dispute furnish their permanent addresses in matters relating to labor law disputes.

"In all cases to be filed in the future and in all pending cases, the parties shall give their permanent address," the bench said.

The apex court said that the notice has to be served on the employee at his permanent address.

The bench was considering an appeal of the firm against an order of a division bench of the High Court, which had upheld the order passed by its single-judge bench, which resulted in validating the labor court's decision.

It said that the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court shows that the workman was represented, therefore he knew to challenge the decision of the Labor Court and dismiss the petition.

The bench noted that the November 2006 order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in the appeal filed by the firm showed that the statement of its counsel was recorded that the management would reinstate the workman and he would be informed accordingly to enable him to. report for duty.

It was noted that the challenge was only to the decision of the Labor Court to the extent of award of back wages.

The bench noted that the management had sent a letter to the workman and he was also requested to give his permanent address.

"When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant (firm) on the instructions of his client submitted that the respondent (employee) has not reported for duty to date. This means that he has no interest in joining duty. and would have been gainfully employed after leaving the job in question,” the apex court said.

It added that considering the factual matrix, the labor court's award granting back pay and continuity in service to the workman should be set aside as he refused to return to duty despite the statement made by his counsel in the court in October 2007. Not reported on.

Setting aside the order passed by the High Court, the bench said, "The present appeal cannot be kept pending as the conduct of the respondent (employee) itself establishes that he is not interested in employment, what to speak of back wages. " As well as the award of the Labor Court. PTI ABA ABA SK SK


Post a Comment