Shivani Thakur
Published on: June 9, 2022, at 20:25 IST
The Gujarat High Court deemed the Petitioner’s termination to be legal and refused to intervene in his dismissal, concluding that the medical store where the Petitioner, a pharmacist, worked had closed down and that the Respondent Sangh no longer owned or controlled the store.
The Bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Mayee refused to rule that the Petitioner’s dismissal was unconstitutional. Because Petitioner has no objection to specific amounts as legal dues and other terminal benefits.
The Petitioner had been a pharmacist for 11 years with the Respondent Sangh. In March 1992, however, his contract was terminated. The Petitioner took his case to the Labour Commissioner, who dismissed it. In this Special Civil Application, he contested the decision.
However, the store was closed because the business was losing money, according to the Respondent Sangh, and all employees were laid off in accordance with the law.
Also the premises were under the supervision and management of the Respondent Sangh. As a result, the Labour Court’s conclusion was valid and proper.
Accordingly, the Bench was not inclined to set aside the order of the Labour Court.
“The evidence and documents on record reveal that the business of the medical store has been closed down by the respondent Sangh. The petitioner has been retrenched in accordance with law after payment of all the retrenchment compensation and other terminal benefits which has been duly accepted by the petitioner,” it observed.