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

1992 Supreme(Guj) 190

R.K.ABICHANDANI, S.NAINAR SUNDARAM
KESHAVLAL M. RAO – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: H.A.RAICHURA, K.S.Nanavati, MEHUL H.RATHOD

S. NAINAR SUNDARAM, J.

( 1 ) ALL the three Special Civil Application can be disposed of by a common order. Though various prayers are raised, the moot question that arises for consideration as per the pleas put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is as to whether the for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to recover the dues of the Petitioners as arrears of land revenue. petitioners could claim the status of Working Journalists and as such newspaper employees within the meaning of the Working Journalists And Other Newspaper employees (Conditions of Service) And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 45 of 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The status claimed by the petitioners is being disputed by the contesting respondents. The endeavour on the part of Mr. H. A. Raichura, learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the machinery under sec. 17 (2) of the Act must be set in motion even to decide this question. Section 17 as it stands today as a whole reads as follows :"17. Recovery of money due from an employer :- (1) Where any amount is due under this Act to a newspaper employee from an employer, the newspaper employer himself, or any person authorised by him in







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