Back
RAVINDRA V.GHUGE
Dashrath Ramlal Garandwal – Appellant
Versus
Ahmednagar Forgings Limited – Respondent
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. In the first petition, the Petitioners are the Workers, who are aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the Industrial Court dated 31.03.2016 by which Complaint (ULP) No.35/2014 has been dismissed and their transfer orders dated 08.02.2014 are sustained.
3. In the second petition, the Petitioner is the Employer who has prayed for refund of the money which has been paid to the Workers by way of an interim arrangement by the order passed by this Court on 27.08.2015 in Writ Petition No.8728/2014 in between these parties. The said amount was paid to the Workers with the direction that the issue of payment of salary from the date of transfer till the decision in the complaint would be subject to the pleadings of the parties and the decision of the Industrial Court. It is, therefore, prayed by the Employer that the amount deposited and/or paid to the Workers, should be refunded to the Employer.
4. For the sake of brevity, in both the petitions, the Workers of the Factory shall be referred to as “the Workers”. The Management shall be referred to as “the Employer”.
5. The contentions of the Wor
None of the case laws listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law. There are no keywords or phrases such as "overruled," "reversed," "disapproved," or "overruled by" present in the descriptions. Therefore, based solely on the provided information, no cases are identified as bad law.
Followed/Consistently Cited:
Chairman And M. D. , B. P. L. LTD. VS S. P. Gururaja - 2003 8 Supreme 129: The case discusses an administrative decision taken after due deliberation and application of mind, emphasizing procedural correctness. Its language suggests it is a well-established principle, but there is no direct indication of subsequent treatment or citation.
Distinguished/Clarified:
Kundan Sugar Mills VS Ziyauddin - 1960 0 Supreme(SC) 30: This case clarifies that the right to transfer an employee is not implicit in every contract of service. It appears to be a specific legal point that may be distinguished in future cases, but no treatment pattern (like being overruled or criticized) is provided.
Reaffirmed/Supported:
State of A. P. VS Goverdhanlal Pitti - 2003 2 Supreme 713: The High Court's decision that acquisition of school land was not malicious in law is presented as a settled legal position, but again, no indication of subsequent treatment is provided.
W. B. State Electricity Board VS Dilip Kumar Ray - 2006 9 Supreme 883: The ruling that damages for malicious prosecution are unjustified when misconduct is revealed by an enquiry appears to be a legal principle that could be reaffirmed in future cases, but no explicit treatment pattern is indicated.
Sunil Kr. Ghosh VS K. Ram Chandran - 2011 8 Supreme 333: The statement of settled law regarding workmen’s rights to refuse work under different management and entitlement to compensation suggests a well-established legal principle, but no subsequent treatment is specified.
Uncertain/Unclear Treatment:
All cases lack explicit references to subsequent judicial treatment such as being overruled, criticized, or distinguished. Without additional case law context, their treatment remains uncertain.
All listed cases fall into the uncertain category regarding their judicial treatment because the descriptions do not specify how they have been treated in subsequent decisions. The absence of references to overruled, reversed, criticized, or distinguished status means their treatment pattern cannot be definitively determined from the provided information.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
