Two years after a 55-year-old driver was fired from UCAL Auto Pvt Ltd, First Additional Labour Court, Chennai directed the company to reinstate him with continuity of service and pay full back wages and other benefits from the date of termination.
Chennai: The petition was filed by V Venkatesan, a resident of Ramapuram under Section A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking the court to intervene and to set aside his unlawful termination from service. He was working as a personal and family driver of the company’s Managing Director until his death in December 2017.
“The act of the company violates section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. This would amount to retrenchment under section 2(o) of the said Act and it is not effected after following the requirements of the provisions,” read the petition. He submitted that he had sincerely worked for the company for 25 years.
The company contended that it is not an industrial dispute and as such the case is not maintainable. “He is not a direct employee of the industry. Even though the nomenclature mentioned as a driver, Venkatesan was carrying on the office work of the MD like delivering files etc,” read the counter.
He was relieved from duty after informing him in January 2018 and paid a three-month salary without assigning any work. “The petitioner cannot expect payment as paid to a workman under section 18(1) settlement before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour,” the company submitted. But Venkatesan contended that the company paid only the wages for his work, not for the notice period.
Presiding Officer N Venkatavaradan said, “It is established that Venkatesan’s termination is against the provisions of the I.D. Act and is entitled to seek relief before this court. Therefore, the petitioner who is aged about 55 years is likely to retire in two or three years and ought not to have been terminated without rhyme or reason and is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and all other benefits.”
“The act of the company violates section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. This would amount to retrenchment under section 2(o) of the said Act and it is not effected after following the requirements of the provisions,” read the petition. He submitted that he had sincerely worked for the company for 25 years.
The company contended that it is not an industrial dispute and as such the case is not maintainable. “He is not a direct employee of the industry. Even though the nomenclature mentioned as a driver, Venkatesan was carrying on the office work of the MD like delivering files etc,” read the counter.
He was relieved from duty after informing him in January 2018 and paid a three-month salary without assigning any work. “The petitioner cannot expect payment as paid to a workman under section 18(1) settlement before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour,” the company submitted. But Venkatesan contended that the company paid only the wages for his work, not for the notice period.
Presiding Officer N Venkatavaradan said, “It is established that Venkatesan’s termination is against the provisions of the I.D. Act and is entitled to seek relief before this court. Therefore, the petitioner who is aged about 55 years is likely to retire in two or three years and ought not to have been terminated without rhyme or reason and is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and all other benefits.”