PARIPOORNAN, K.A.NAYAR
Paily – Appellant
Versus
Muthiah – Respondent
K. A. Nayar, J.
The writ appeal is against the judgment in O.P. No. 1956 of 1990 by the workman, viz. Assistant Conductor of the second respondent who was charge sheeted and after domestic enquiry dismissed from service by the management which became subject matter of an Industrial Dispute No. 126/1986 adjudicated by the 2nd respondent, Labour Court, Ernakulam. The second respondent directed to reinstate the workman without benefit of back wages. both-the management and the workman are filed writ petitions, viz. O.P.No.1956/90 and O.P. 5762 of 1990 challenging the award - the management against the direction to reinstate "the workman and, the workman against the order denying the back wages. The learned Single Judge disposed of both the original petitions with the direction to reemploy the workman as Supervisor and not an Assistant Conductor. That means the dismissal of the original petition filed by the workman and modification of the award, in the original petition filed by the management. The workman has not filed an appeal against the order passed in his original petition, but he filed writ appeal against the judgment in O.P. filed by the management, viz. O.P. No. 19
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.