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

2004 Supreme(Guj) 25

H.K.RATHOD
RAIBEN SHIVIBEN – Appellant
Versus
RAMESHCHANDRA BHAIYAJI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: D.J.BHATT, K.G.PANDIT

H. K. RATHOD, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned advocate Mr. K. G. Pandit on behalf of petitioner, learned advocate Mr. D. J. Bhatt appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are deleted by the petitioner in the present petition. Petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Court, Ahmedabad. The Labour Court, Ahmedabad has passed an order vide Exh. 18 in complaint No. 20 of 1985 dated 21st July 1990, wherein the complaint filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that it is beyond time limit. Against that, Revision Application was filed by the petitioner being numbered 18 of 1990 before the Industrial Court and that Revision Application was filed under Section 85 of the Bombay Industrial Relation Act, 1946 and the said was rejected by the Industrial Court on 26th September 1991.

( 2 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. D. J. Bhatt having information has submitted that according to his information, Asarva Mills is closed. Learned advocate Mr. Pandit has submitted that the Labour Court and Industrial Court both have committed gross error in rejecting the applications submitted by the petitioner. He submitted that both the authorities











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