AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the counsel for the parties.
The Appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.9.2010 by which the writ petition of the writ Petitioner-appellant employer has been dismissed wherein the writ Petitioner-appellant challenged the order dated 28.2.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur in B.S. Case No. 3 of 1997.
Undisputedly, the Respondent-employee got the appointment in the year 1974 and he served up to 6.2.1997. On 6.2.1997, according to the Appellant, the services of the Respondent-employee was terminated on 6th February, 1997 on account of recovery of certain amount from the Respondent. However, the Appellant took the plea that the termination of service of the Respondent employee was simplicitor termination and was not stigmatic as in terms of the contract the employee could have been terminated from the services of the employer by serving one month''s notice or on payment of one month''s salary in lieu of the notice.
Be that as it may, the fact is that it has been alleged that on 4.2.1997 certain amount has been recovered from the Respondent-employee and admittedly in that situation also no enquiry was conducted and the Appellant wants to take the benefit of the Clause contained in the contract which was not meant for dispensing with the services of the employee who has already served for more than 20 years.
In view of the above reasons, as well as in view of the detailed reasons given by the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge and the peculiar fact is that the employee retired when the matter was pending before the Labour Court, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders and further more important is that the learned Single Judge has already modified the award and allowed only 50% of the Back wages to a retired employee on attaining the age of superannuation.
In the facts of the case, we are not impressed with the arguments advanced the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the establishment of the Appellant falls under the provision of Shops & Establishment Act but is not a factory, and therefore, the authority had no jurisdiction.
In view of the above, we find no merit in this L.P.A., which is accordingly dismissed.