Dedicated to my wife…

Read on to know what happens to men who marry in India

Employers cannot be forced to take back convicts: HC

Posted by iluvshrutiverma on December 1, 2009

Various law enforcement (a.k.a police) and criminal trial authorities (a.k.a. courts) need some serious training as to what different sections of I.P.C. mean.

In the below case, the whole trial happened under both IPC 302 and 306.

302 is punishment for murder. 306 is abetment to suicide. Isn’t it common sense that the death was either a murder or a suicide? How can it be both?

(For my blog readers who have advanced knowledge of law: Even if it was suicide that is assumed to be dowry death, then also section 304 (b) should apply and not 302.)

My country is great. A person was in custody for 5 years and absolutely no one (police, court, lawyer) objected to the mis-founded justice.

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_employers-cannot-be-forced-to-take-back-convicts-hc_1318652

Mumbai: Employers cannot be forced to retain an employee convicted for a serious offence, ruled the Bombay high court.

In a judgment last week, justice Dr DY Chandrachud set aside two judgments of a labour and industrial court, which early this year had directed Tata Power Limited to reinstate an employee and also pay him back wages since 1998.
The court also ruled that holding of departmental inquiry is not compulsory if the employee stands convicted for a criminal offence.
“Once there is a conviction by a court of law and conviction is of criminal offence involving moral turpitude, the charge of misconduct stands established. In a case, where a workman had been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction, the holding of departmental inquiry would be entirely superfluous,” observed justice Chandrachud.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by Tata Power Ltd. The power giants had moved high court, challenging the orders of labour as well as industrial courts, which had directed them to reinstate one KT Mane and also to pay him back wages since 1998.
Mane, according to the 14-page judgment, was convicted under section 498A and 306 by a session court in December, 1997. Mane was also arrested under section 302 after his wife died due to burn injuries in December 1993. The session court, however, acquitted him of murder charges, but convicted him for five years imprisonment for the other two charges. He was released from prison in February 1998, as he was in custody since his arrest in December 1993.
The company had then refused him to reinstate on the same post and had also issued him a show-cause notice. Mane then moved labour court that ruled in his favour. Even the industrial court had judged in favour of Mane.
The judgment further says: “Both the labour court and the industrial court failed to appreciate the correct legal position and manifestly erred in holding that the action of the employer of dismissing the workman had to be set aside for want of a departmental inquiry.”
Observing that the workman failed to discharge his moral duties, justice Chandrachud also set aside the lower court’s order of paying back wages to the workman.
The court has also granted liberty to Tata Power to withdraw Rs1.71 lakh deposited with the labour court.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: