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

2005 Supreme(Guj) 111

D.H.WAGHELA, M.S.SHAH
LALLUBHAI BAPUJIBHAI PARMAR – Appellant
Versus
PANCHMAHAL DISTRICT PANCHAYAT – Respondent


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

M. S. SHAH, J.

( 1 ) AT the oral request of the learned counsel for the appellants, leave to delete respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

( 2 ) ADMIT. Mr Hemant Munshaw, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 waives service of notice of admission of the appeals. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals are taken up for final disposal today.

( 3 ) THIS group of eight appeals challenges the common judgment dated 19. 8. 2004 of the learned Single Judge by which the separate petitions filed by the Panchmahals District Panchayat challenging the recovery certificates issued by the Labour Court, Panchmahals at Godhra are ordered to be set aside on the ground that the eight recovery applications filed by the appellants under Section 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act" for short) were not maintainable and also on the ground that the recovery applications were premature and, therefore, the Labour Court had committed a serious error of law. Facts leading to filing of the petitions

( 4 ) SINCE the judgment under appeal does not set out the complete and relevant history of the litigation, it is necessary to se

















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