SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(SC) 871

P.B.SAWANT, S.C.AGRAWAL
Anup Engineering – Appellant
Versus
Shreenarayan Kanaiyalal – Respondent


(1) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, we are of the view that at the interlocutory stage the High court ought not to have pronounced on the question of law, namely, whether the dismissal relates back to the date on which the employee was dismissed or whether it takes effect from the date of the Labour courts Award. That was the main issue to be decided in the proceedings before the Labour court. The interlocutory relief has been granted by the High court also on that basis. We, therefore, set aside the impugned decision of the High court. It appears that pursuant to the said order, the appellant employer had deposited an amount of Rs.72,331.00 in the High court and the employee was permitted to withdraw 50% of the said amount. Accordingly, he has withdrawn the said amount. Let that amount remain deposited with the High court and it will follow the result of the proceedings in the Labour court. The Labour court is directed to proceed with the matter and dispose it of according to law within six months from today without in any way being influenced by the order of the High court. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top