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

2019 Supreme(Bom) 932

RAVINDRA V.GHUGE
Kinetic Engineering Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Barku – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
V.S. Bedre, Adv., S.V. Warad, Adv., P.L. Shahane, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

These matters are heard at length.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgments of the Industrial Court by which the ULP complaints filed by the respondents have been allowed. The respondents/original complainants have been granted permanency in employment with all benefits. Though all of them have been working intermittently as per the appointment letters issued to them, the breaks in service of about 12 months to 3 years have been bridged by the Industrial Court, which has concluded that they have worked continuously in the employment of the petitioner industry. The petitioner contends that the impugned judgments are unsustainable.

3. In the first petition, the original complainant is Barku Zumbar Borude. Before approaching the Industrial Court by filing a complaint for seeking permanency, he had worked as per the chart supplied by him as under :-

Sr.No.

Appointment period

Department

Designation

(1)

27.5.1985 to 26.11.85

 

 

(2)

16.1.1987 to 15.8.1987

Sp. Planning

Helper

(3

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