M.M.DUTT, RANGANATH MISRA
Des Raj – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
Judgement
RANGANATH MISRA, J.:- Each of these appeals is by special leave and is directed against the Award made in different disputes by the Labour Court. The common justification for ignoring the High Court and approaching this Court directly by way of special leave, according to Mr. Jitendra Sharma for each of the appellants, is that there are a couple of Full Bench decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the Irrigation Department of the State Government of Punjab is not an industry and no useful purpose would have been served by routing the matters through the High Court as the Full Bench decision would have been followed.
2. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 5415 of 1985 was a foreman in the Mechanical Construction Division under the Irrigation Department and had applied under Section 33C-2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Labour Court for recovery of arrears of annual increments.
3. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2168 of 1987 was a T. Mate in the P.W.D. Drainage Division. When his services were terminated without complying with the requirements of the law, he challenged the termination before the Labour
REFERRED TO : Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa
relied on : D. N. Banerji v. P. R. Mukherjee
State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha
Corporation of the City of Nagpur v. Employees
Management of Safdarjung Hospital v. Kuldip Singh Sethi
REFERRED TO : Secretary, Madras Gymkhana Club Employees Union v. Gymkhana Club
University of Delhi v. Ram Nath
National Union of Commercial Employees v. M. R. Meher, Industrial tribunal, Bombay
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.