Aurangabad Labor Court Rejects Worker’s Plea Against Industrial House | Aurangabad News
[ad_1]
AURANGABAD: The Aurangabad Labor Court rejected the plea filed by a worker against his employer, the industrial company “Endurance Technologies Ltd”, one of the country’s leading die-casting manufacturers.
The aluminum die-casting manufacturing unit in Waluj launched a Voluntary Separation Program (VSS) under the name Samman Yojana on October 15, 2020, for its permanent workers.
A total of 87 staff members of the said company had requested voluntary retirement, of which 86 were sanctioned and that of worker Ashok Tikkal was refused. In the meantime, the complainant worker has been suspended pending an investigation into charges that he ran a separate die-casting manufacturing unit on behalf of his wife.
Damaged by the action, he seized the labor court alleging “that he had been the subject of a false disciplinary action to avoid the granting of VSS which constitutes a discriminatory and colorful exercise of the powers of the management of the ’employer’ and demanded compensation of Rs 5 lakh.
Labor tribunal member Vimalnath Tiwari, while rejecting the worker’s plea, quoted: “The indulgence of this tribunal to suspend the stay order or to order the respondent not to act on it. the indictment would amount to interfering with the respondent’s rights. given to him under the standing order template.
Representing the industrial house, lawyer Yugant Marlapalle contested that management rejected the complainant’s allegation and stressed that the VSS scheme is not an offer but an invitation to workers to offer themselves for voluntary retirement.
He vehemently contested “Unless such an offer from the workers is accepted by the employer, a contract does not exist and therefore the breach of such a non-existent contract cannot be alleged.” According to Marlapalle, the worker filed a complaint to protect himself from the disciplinary sanction of the management. Management has the right to suspend a worker pending investigation and unless the imprecision of the indictment, as alleged, is established, the court cannot quash the indictment.
After hearing both parties, the member of the labor court concluded: “Any provisional order made against the defendant (the industry) would lead to the indulgence of this court on the rights of the defendant to deal with the subject which touches on secrets. and the integrity of its organization, given under the law.
The aluminum die-casting manufacturing unit in Waluj launched a Voluntary Separation Program (VSS) under the name Samman Yojana on October 15, 2020, for its permanent workers.
A total of 87 staff members of the said company had requested voluntary retirement, of which 86 were sanctioned and that of worker Ashok Tikkal was refused. In the meantime, the complainant worker has been suspended pending an investigation into charges that he ran a separate die-casting manufacturing unit on behalf of his wife.
Damaged by the action, he seized the labor court alleging “that he had been the subject of a false disciplinary action to avoid the granting of VSS which constitutes a discriminatory and colorful exercise of the powers of the management of the ’employer’ and demanded compensation of Rs 5 lakh.
Labor tribunal member Vimalnath Tiwari, while rejecting the worker’s plea, quoted: “The indulgence of this tribunal to suspend the stay order or to order the respondent not to act on it. the indictment would amount to interfering with the respondent’s rights. given to him under the standing order template.
Representing the industrial house, lawyer Yugant Marlapalle contested that management rejected the complainant’s allegation and stressed that the VSS scheme is not an offer but an invitation to workers to offer themselves for voluntary retirement.
He vehemently contested “Unless such an offer from the workers is accepted by the employer, a contract does not exist and therefore the breach of such a non-existent contract cannot be alleged.” According to Marlapalle, the worker filed a complaint to protect himself from the disciplinary sanction of the management. Management has the right to suspend a worker pending investigation and unless the imprecision of the indictment, as alleged, is established, the court cannot quash the indictment.
After hearing both parties, the member of the labor court concluded: “Any provisional order made against the defendant (the industry) would lead to the indulgence of this court on the rights of the defendant to deal with the subject which touches on secrets. and the integrity of its organization, given under the law.
[ad_2]
Source link
