Arguments are over. Advocates are hopeful of settling the matters. Put up on 6/7/2012.
[ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn SCA 9073 & 8510 of 2003.
Mr.
Upadhyay's submission:
Ld.
Advocate Mr. Upadhyay submitted that the matter be remanded to the Labour Court as there is no discussion on the point of effecting the dismissal order without approval by the competent authority.
----------------------
Mr.
Gandhi for Nanavaty Associates submissions:
Ld.
Advocate Mr. Gandhi for the respondent submitted that the employee has approached this Court assailing the award of Labour Court on the ground that the approval application though filed was withdrawn and therefore the order of termination was legal.
Labour Court has proceeded on merits and negatived the contention with regard to victimization and specifically held that the order of termination cannot be said to be result of victimization. Therefore, the ground of not obtaining approval would not be available to the workman. Moreover workman has not taken out this plea specifically anywhere in the statement of claim, it would have required employer to prove otherwise.
The withdrawal of approval application on 21/8/1999 has not godded the workman to raise this specific issue before the Labour Court so as to invite findings and adjudication thereof. In any event in view of (2009) 17 SC 473 (Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Co.) and (2005) 3 SCC 409 (KSRTC Vs. SG Katurman) protection under I.D. Act unless workman proves he has completed 240 days, is not available, and there is not any prevention of statutory provision.
Top