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

1992 Supreme(Guj) 89

J.M.PANCHAL, A.P.RAVANI
DAHYALAL MOHANLAL DIWAN – Appellant
Versus
PARAJITSINGH BHATIA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: B.R.GUPTA, D.M.DIVAN, K.G.VAKHARIA

A. P. RAVANI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner-workman appears as party in person and has filed this petition challenging the legality and validity of the order passed by the Industrial Court in Appeal (IC) No. 102/91 dated 27/03/1992 by which the Industrial Court set aside the order passed by the Labour Court as regards the payment of backwages and the payment of cost of Rs. 500. 00. The period for which the backwages denied are between November 15 198 8/02/1993 and even according to the respondent-Mill Company the total amount payable to the workman would come to Rs. 91 816. 91 ps. (Ninety-one thousand eight hundred sixteen and paise ninety-one only ). (This figure has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent-Mill Company at the time of hearing of the petition. According to the workman the amount would be more and it would be exceeding Rs. one lac. In short the figure is not admitted by the petitioner workman.)

( 2 ) THE petitioner-workman joined the services of the respondent-Mill Company as doffer in the year 1972. He was promoted as reliever in the year 1975 and since then he was working in Ring frame department as permanent workman in second shift of the Mill Company. He




















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