Why this flaw in our judicial system?
skg
(Querist) 23 February 2013
This query is : Resolved
Dear experts
Why High Courts send back a cases to a civil court after rejecting a writ of ceritori of workman who after advise of lawyers filed his case in labour court and fight for 5 to 6 years and also proved with documentary evidences that his termination was illegal but since it has been awarded by lower court or upper courts that he is not a workman he has to start a fresh case for appropriate remedy in civil court for damages or compensation when if after winning from civil court he has to face again the same High Court approached by his employer now.
Is this not a flaw in our judicial system in which a litigant got trapped unnecessarily in time consuming procedures without any fault of his own as he only followed advises of lawyers and put his case in the appropriate jurisdiction at lower level.
Are there any ways in which HIgh courts can proceed on issue of illegal termination (or discharge simplicitor) only and decide now the compensation and not reinstatement ignoring the fact that whether employee is workman or not ?
please give your advise on this issue
rgds
yogesh
(Expert) 23 February 2013
Sir, I think u have post the same in Legal Point, facebook?..
Generally Appelate courts haas been floded with cases so they stress upon the remedies to be exhausted before approaching to them..Otherwisse fucntion of the appelate courts will be slow down due to the pendency of the cases and so admit the case only in rarre cases..The fucntions of CAT, Labour court, consumer ,DRT etc has been made to reduce the congestion on the appelate courts
More precisely I say if aptient moves to speciality hospital for common cold how they react..That's why Govt has open the small dispensaries..same applies here
Khaleel Ahmed Mohammed
(Expert) 23 February 2013
There is no legal flaw in our judicial system.If there is no remedy available then only writ will be considered. In your case there is civil remedy available. You lawyer misguided you to file writ, writ is not a proper remedy in your case.The High court is absolutely right to reject the writ application.
skg
(Querist) 24 February 2013
Dear experts,
Why our judicial system let the litigant suffer for years and do not amend its law on grounds that if by mistake the lawyer misquided the litigant and did not filed his case initially in appropriate forum then High Court will take those pleadings which are in favour of workman and accordingly give suitable judgment on those pleadings which labour court ignores totally if the employee falls out of workman category.
rgds
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 24 February 2013
Laws are to be amended and created by the Legislative Bodies and not by the Judiciary or Lawyers.
Better ask your parliamentarians and the Legislators for all this mix up.
Khaleel Ahmed Mohammed
(Expert) 24 February 2013
Your allegation against the judicial system is totally false.How the court can rectify your mistake.It is for you to rectify your own mistake.The legal procedure is perfect.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 24 February 2013
YOU MEAN WHY THE HIGH COURT DID NOT SPECIALLY OBLIGED YOU GRANTING THE RELIEF YOU ASKED FOR WHICH THERE IS A PROPER FORUM??
BECAUSE IT WOULD AMOUNT TO DISCRIMINATION.
Guest
(Expert) 24 February 2013
Dear SKG,
In fact, no system can be claimed to be flawless, fool-proof and perfect. Any man-made system goes wrong somewhere or the other.
But, in your case, the flaw can be at any stage, i.e., the multiplicity of the labour laws made in delinked manner with each other, ignorance of the employee about various such laws and the judicial system, the misunderstanding by your advocate about the definition of a worker, the various lower level courts/tribunals etc., to entertain the service law cases, etc.
Since you have not given any specific description about your case, no specific opinion can be formed in your case merely on the basis of general description and your personal opinion.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 05 March 2013
This is endless discussion not directly concerned with the querist so better to pay attention to the needy querists.
