Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S.SUPEHIA, R.T.VACHHANI
Dhiren R.Acharya – Appellant
Versus
Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the rejection of benefits under establishment circulars. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. factual background regarding the appellant’s employment and claims. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments of the appellant regarding benefits and compliance. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 11) |
| 4. counterarguments and evidence from the respondents showing compliance. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. court's reasoning based on evidence and prior proceedings. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. final decision to reject the writ petition. (Para 21) |
ORDER :
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present appeal, filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.04.2024 passed in Writ Petition being Special Civil Application No.15307 of 2014, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.
2. The writ petition was filed seeking the following prayer : -
“18. (B) Be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ In the nature of certiorari and or in nature of mandamus quashing and setting aside the decision taken by the petitioned on dated 19.11.2013 rejecting the application of the petitioner for considering the benifit of estab
The court upheld that claims for employment benefits cannot be pursued after long delays when there is suppression of material facts and ongoing recovery proceedings.
Point of Law - The only contention raised by the petitioner is that the recovery proceedings are filed beyond the period of limitation provided under section 33C(1) of the I.D. Act, which stipulates ....
If the petitioner perceived that any part of the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court and confirmed by this Court is yet not fully implemented, he may resort to any other remedy, that may be....
The importance of evidence presented before the Labour Court, the limited scope of judicial review, and the impact of delay and suppression of material facts on the petition.
The Labour Court does not become functus officio after the award has become enforceable, as far as the ex parte award is concerned. It is within the powers of the Labour Court/Tribunal to entertain a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of an employee to claim wages for the period between dismissal and reinstatement, as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes ....
The existence of a binding settlement under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act negates claims of workmen, especially when raised after an excessive delay of 19 years.
The Labour Court's jurisdiction under Section 33(C)(2) is limited to interpreting awards and cannot adjudicate disputed claims; a pre-existing right must be established for recovery applications.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
