ABEY THOMAS Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Unnikrishnan M. and another Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour and others reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 6530 and submitted that when the petitioner herein was transferred to Chennai and the post came to be subsequently abolished, he ought to have been re-transferred to the office of the Establishment that were functioning in Mumbai and therefore, terminating the service of the petitioner on the ground that the post was no longer required, cannot be sustained.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on a few decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the proposition that the authority under the Act was not correct in holding that the petitioner was estopped from filing an appeal against the order of termination, after receiving the compensation amount, particularly, when such compensation was received under protest.