9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include seeking relief under Art. 32 of the Constitution for regularizing services, equal wages, unfair labor practices, violation of right to equality of pay under Art. 14, and non-regularization of services. Judgment Details: Issue 1: Regularization of Services and Equal Wages The petitioners, daily rated workers seeking relief under Art. 32, contended that despite continuous service, the respondent resorted to unfair labor practices by creating artificial breaks in service. The Industrial Tribunal found that petitioners are entitled to equal pay for equal work under Art. 39(d) and Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It recommended regularizing the petitioners, granting increments, and criticized the dismissal of workers without following the rule of last come first go. The Tribunal also found non-regularization due to uncertain contract validity as a pretense and suggested framing a scheme for regularization. Issue 2: Confirmation of Employment The controversy centered around whether some petitioners had the requisite qualifications for confirmation in their posts. The Court emphasized practical experience gained during work and directed the regularization of senior-most workmen with immediate effect and the remaining petitioners in a phased manner. It mandated equal pay, reinstatement of ousted workers, and consideration for promotions. The respondent was directed to deposit a sum for the Industrial Tribunal's remuneration. Separate Judgment by Judges: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
