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

1995 Supreme(Guj) 104

R.BALIA
BARODA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION – Appellant
Versus
GAJENDRA R. DHUMAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: N.M.Shah, PRANAV G.DESAI, S.P.HASURKAR

R. BALIA, J.

( 1 ) ). Rule. Mr. S. P. Hasulkar, learned Advocate appears for respondent and waives service of Rule. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on merits.

( 2 ) ). On reference being made, of the following question: the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara made Award on the following terms on 30-4-1994:

( 3 ) ). Aggrieved with the aforesaid Award, the Municipal Corporation, Vadodara has come up before this Court through this Special Civil Application.

( 4 ) ). To understand contentions and controversy raised before me, it would be necessary to notice brief facts as narrated in the Award. Respondent-Gajendra R. Dhumal (hereinafter called as the workman) was appointed in 1981 by the petitioner-Corporation as Asstt. Draftsman on which post he continued until when his services were wrongly terminated without following the conditions of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thereafter he was appointed on Tracers post, lower to the post of Asstt. Draftsman from October 1985. By the order dated 9-10-1985, the workman was transferred to another department on the ground that his work in the present department was not satisfactory. However, from the record of the Municipal Corpo










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