Back
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Ved Prakash – Appellant
Versus
Apparel Training And Design Centre – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions initiated by employees against termination. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments regarding maintainability and wrongful termination. (Para 4 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. detailing aepc's role and relationship with atdc. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. respondents' contentions on non-applicability of article 12. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 5. writ jurisdiction's applicability based on public function. (Para 38 , 64) |
| 6. court’s ruling on illegal and arbitrary termination. (Para 66 , 70 , 76) |
| 7. judgment in favor of the petitioner with reinstatement orders. (Para 77 , 79) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This judgment has been pronounced through video conferencing.
Brief Background
2. The present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner seeking appropriate writ/order or direction for setting aside the letter dated 19th June, 2020 issued by the respondent No. 2 whereby the services of the Petitioner were terminated. A total of four writ petitions have been heard together by this Court. The same were filed by four regular/permanent employees working with the Apparel Training and Design Centre ('ATDC') at various positions such as
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
