9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Termination of services of a doctor on ad-hoc basis without notice and retrenchment compensation. 2. Applicability of Section 25-F and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. Classification of the doctor as a workman under Section 2(s) of the Act. Analysis: Issue 1: The appellant appointed respondent No. 2 as a doctor on an ad-hoc basis, and after multiple extensions, terminated his services without notice. Respondent No. 2 contended that his termination was illegal as he had worked for over 240 days and was entitled to a notice under Section 25-F of the Act. The Labour Court upheld his claim, ordering his reinstatement with full back wages and interest. Issue 2: The appellant argued that respondent No. 2 was not a workman and had been appointed for a specific period, thus not entitled to Section 25-F benefits. They also claimed that respondent's application for fresh selection waived his right to challenge the termination. However, the Labour Court found in favor of respondent No. 2, emphasizing the lack of a one-month notice as required by Section 25-F. Issue 3: The key contention was whether respondent No. 2 could be classified as a workman under Section 2(s) of the Act. The appellant argued that his supervisory role and monthly emoluments exceeding Rs. 1200 excluded him from this definition. The court analyzed the duties performed by respondent No. 2, including providing first aid and overseeing subordinates, concluding that he was indeed working in a supervisory capacity. Citing precedents, the court held that the doctor's supervisory functions rendered him ineligible for the status of a workman under the Act. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous judgments and ruling that the termination of respondent No. 2 was valid. The respondent was directed to refund the back wages received, and the appellant was entitled to a refund of deducted income tax. No costs were awarded in the matter.
|
