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

1999 Supreme(AP) 274

A.HANUMANTHU
Kanadapudi Bharathy, Gudivada – Appellant
Versus
Authority Under Section of A. P. S. E. Act-cum-Labour Officer, Machilipatnam – Respondent


A. HANUMANTHU, J.

( 1 ) THE short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether power of attorney holder of a party is entitled to appear as a witness on behalf of the said party ?

( 2 ) THE facts leading for filing of this writ petition are as follows :the writ petitioners are the owners of a Hotel at Gudivada in Krishna District. The second respondent herein was the Manager of the said Hotel. As a result of some misgivings, the second respondent was kept away from Hotel business from the year 1992 onwards. The second respondent raised a dispute before the Authority under Section 50 of A. P. Shops and Establishments Act-cum-Labour Officer (first respondent herein) in A. P. F. C. No. 4 of 1996. The second respondent also filed a civil suit in OSNo. 209 of 1996 in the Court of the District Munsif, Gudivada, claiming a sum of Rs. 40,000. 00 towards bonus arrears. The petitioners filed a counter in A. P. F. C. No. 4 of 1996 contending that since the second respondent was drawing a salary of Rs. 3,000. 00per month at the relevant point of time, the first respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the case in terms of Section 73 (1) (a) of A. P. Shops and





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