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) 527

J.N.BHATT
PANCHMAHAL DISTRICT PANCHAYAT – Appellant
Versus
SALAMBHAI BAVABHAI PARMAR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: D.A.SURANI, H.S.MUNSHAW

J. N. BHATT, J.

( 1 ) IN this group of Writ Petitions, common questions about the interpretation of the provisions of Sec. 33c (2) and resultant rights of the employees are involved. Therefore, upon request, they are heard simultaneously, and now, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE petitioners, Panchayats, are bodies duly constituted under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 and constituted in Panchmahal district of Gujarat State, whereas, respondent No. 1 in each petition is the workman or the casual labourer and respondent No. 2 is the Mamlatdar of panchmahal District, being Revenue Recovery Authority. The respondents, in these petitions, filed Recovery Applications under Sec. 33c (2) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 ("i. D. Act", for short) against the petitioner-authorities before the Labour Court, Godhra, Panchmahal District, being Recovery application Nos. 3 to 10 of 1995, raising the following pleas : (I) That they are working since 1973 on permanent basis and with honesty and integrity; (II) That they have continuously worked as workmen for more than 240 days continuously for 5 years; (III) That, they are, therefore, entitled to















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