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

1983 Supreme(Guj) 200

R.A.MEHTA, R.C.MANKAD
SOMIBEN MATHURBHAI VASAVA – Appellant
Versus
LALJI HAKKU PARMAR LEATHER WORKS COMPANY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: J.J.SHAH, P.C.MASTER

R. A. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition arises from dismissal of a Recovery Application claiming payment of minimum wages. The petitioner and several other workmen of the respondent employer had filed Recovery Applications under sec. 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming payment of special allowance fixed by a notification (Ann. A to the petition) under the Minimum Wages Act for the scheduled industry of the respondent-employer. The petitioner claimed recovery of an amount of Ass. 2246. 20 ps. being the difference of amount between the wages actually paid and payable under the notification under Minimum Wages Act for the period from 1977 to 31-5-1978. There were several other recovery applications and it appears that a joint purshis had been given by the parties that whatever order is made in the present proceedings would be implemented in other recovery applications also.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent faintly raised a contention that the notification is applicable to tanneries and leather manufactory and the respondents establishment could not be covered under the same. The Labour Court has negatived that contention relying on the case of SUPERINTENDENT AND REMEMB
















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