RAVINDRA V.GHUGE
Sachin Charlus Mirpagar – Appellant
Versus
Divisional Controller Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.
Rule. Rule made returnable forth-with and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. Perused the record available.
3. The petitioner employee, by this petition, has put-forth prayer clause 13-A and B, as under:-
(B) By issuing the appropriate writ, order, direction or any other appropriate order in the nature of writ, the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to allow the application below Exh. U -2 filed by petitioner in Complaint (ULP) No.0-9/2017. "
4. The petitioner is working as a Junior Assistant with the respondent Corporation. In 2006, he was transferred to Shevgaon depot. It is his contention that, on 21.1.2017, he performed his duties in the second shift at the concerned workshop beginning at 5 p.m. and ending at 2 a.m. on 22.1.2017. After shift hours, while
Bajaj Auto Limited vs. Kalidas Devram Patil
Hindustan Lever Limited vs. Ashok Vishnu Kate
M/s Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut and others
Mulchandani Electrical & Radio Industries Ltd., vs. The workmen
Palghat BPL & PSP Thozhilali Union vs. BPL (I) Limited & another
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.