Labour Laws: Labour dispute – Non-mentioning of the permanent address of the workman, addressed furnished is care of Union, and as such efforts to serve him at the given address remained futile – Held: Effective relief can granted to a worker only if the permanent address of the workman is furnished in the pleadings – Issuance of directions to the authorities working under the various labour laws to take corrective measure – Parties to furnish their permanent address – Even if the representative of the workman is appearing, he shall furnish permanent address of the workman as well – Mere mentioning through labour union or authorised representatives, who are sometimes union leaders or legal practitioners not sufficient – Service of notice of workman to be affected on the permanent address of the workman – On facts, the employee did not furnish his own address but is through some Union – Management sent various communications by Registered Post/Courier requesting him to report for duty, but there was no response – Conduct of the employee itself establishes that he is no more interested in employment – Thus, the award passed by the labour court directing reinstatement of the employee with continuity of service as upheld by the High Court, set aside – Judicial directions.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.