REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

The Workman Sunil Bardhan, Represented By Cachar Cinema Karmi Sangha Appellant

V/S

The Management Of Oriental Talkies And Ors. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SHARP V/S. WAKEFIELD [REFERRED TO]
BUCKINGHAM AND CARNATIC CO. LTD. V/S. WORKERS [REFERRED TO]
MURARI MOHAN DEB V/S. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
KALYANI (P.H.) V/S. AIR FRANCA [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LIMITED ALL INDIA PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK EMPLOYEES FEDERATION VS. ALL INDIA PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK EMPLOYEES FEDERATION:PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
ASSAM OIL CO LIMITED NEW DELHI VS. ITS WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
BENGAL BHATDE COAL CO LIMITED VS. RAM PROBESH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
HIND CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING CO LIMITED VS. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
RUBY GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. P P CHOPRA [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN STEELS LIMITED ROURKELA VS. A K ROY [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF PANITOLE TEA ESTATE VS. WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
FRANCIS KLEIN AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED VS. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN SINGH MALHI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT STEEL TUBES LIMITED VS. GUJARAT STEEL TUBES MAZDOOR SABHA [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA KUMAR VERMA VS. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
ABHINASH CHANDRA GAUTAM VS. UNION TERRITORY OF TRIPURA [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT SINGH VS. PEPSU ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA SINGH RATHOR VS. BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAWAN LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER KUMAR KINDRA VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. SHAMBHU NATH MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
C ELUMALAI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
SANT RAJ VS. O P SINGLA [REFERRED TO]
TATA OIL MILLS COMPANY, LIMITED VS. ITS WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
SAMNUGGUR JUTE FACTORY COMPANY, LIMITED VS. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN OF ASSAM MATCH COMPANY LIMITED VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is Justice, wails the workman, if no relief or inadequate relief is granted to him although on the own showing of the Industrial Tribunal he was hired and fired by the Management? Is it justice, if the tribunal having held that the termination of his services was illegal and void yet does not grant him the relief of reinstatement with back wages without any justifiable reason? These are precisely the questions posed by the workman in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Silchar in Reference case No. 19 of 1982. The Tribunal has held that the services of Shri Sunil Bardhan, the workman, were illegally terminated yet it refuged the reliefs of reinstatement and back wages, instead paid compensation less than what the workman was entitled to as back wages. It is contended before us that the refusal to reinstate the workman with back wages is unjust, unreasonable and against the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The aggrieved workman prayed for the reliefs to which he was entitled under the Constitution and the law and the refusal or denial of his legitimate right was "injustice".

(2.) THE FACTUAL MATRIX NECESSARY FOR DISPOSAL OF THE QUESTIONS POSED ARE AS FOLLOWS.

(3.) It is apposite to mention here that Sec. 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, "the Act" for short, came into force with effect from December 15, 1978, which empowered the Tribunal to interfere with the managerial Power of imposing penalty. The Tribunals can interfere with the quantum of penalty and reduce its rigors. The managerial power of imposing penalty has been expressly made justiciable by the Industrial courts and Tribunals. In other words the range of amplitude of the power of the Tribunal has been enlarged and they can award appropriate reliefs according to the exigencies of the situation.

Click here to view full judgment.

THE WORKMAN SUNIL BARDHAN, REPRESENTED BY CACHAR CINEMA KARMI SANGHA Vs. THE MANAGEMENT OF ORIENTAL TALKIES AND ORS.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address