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

1994 Supreme(Guj) 111

K.J.VAIDYA
NANIBEN BECHARBHAI – Appellant
Versus
H. K. DAVE PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: J.T.TRIVEDI, M.S.SHAH, P.B.MAJUMDAR, S.M.SHAH

K. J. VAIDYA, J.

( 1 ) WHAT indeed is the right, nay more than that the privilege of the workmen, regarding, "speedy justice" under the Workmens Compensation act, 1923 and/or under any other Labour Laws and for that purpose even further indeed what are the corresponding duties, firstly, enjoined upon the Workmen commissioner and/or any other Labour Courts and for that purpose, in case if there is any insufficiency of number of Judges and Courts then in that case, that of, secondly, the duty of the Government also in this regard, under Art. 21 of the constitution of India to provide as many number of adequate Courts and Judges for speeding up the proceedings before the Courts. This precisely is principal thrust and theme of the discussion and ultimate finding to the questions raised here centering around this Civil Revision Application.

( 2 ) TO state few relevant facts briefly, applicant Naniben, a poor illiterate lady, aged 55 years, filed the compensation application, the same being W. C. Application no. 14 of 1985 before the Workmens Compensation Commissioner, Bhavnagar against two respondents, viz. , H. K. Dave Private Limited, Bhavnagar and M/s. Harlalka M. C. and Co. , Calcutt










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