Y.K.SABHARWAL, BRIJESH KUMAR
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD – Appellant
Versus
SONE LAL – Respondent
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted. .
3. Learned counsel for Respondent 1, who is on caveat, accepts notice. Learned counsel submits that the matter may be disposed of at this stage. We dispense with service on formal Respondents 2 and 3.
4. The writ petition out of which this matter has arisen is pending in the High Court. While dealing with this aspect of interim order, on 4-2-2002 statement of counsel for the appellant was noticed by the High Court that provisions of Section 17- B of the Industrial Disputes Act have been complied with. That order states that if it has been complied with and the workman has been reinstated and paid his current salary from the date of the award, the interim order passed by the Court shall continue otherwise it shall stand automatically vacated. The appellant moved an application seeking modification of the order dated 4-2-2002 on the ground' that under some misconception counsel for the appellant stated that the aforesaid provisions have been complied with. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, even if the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act were to be complied, it was not obligatory to reinstate the employee vi
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.