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

1989 Supreme(Mad) 41

K.NATARAJAN
N. Thirumalai – Appellant
Versus
Binny Ltd. – Respondent


ORDER

1. This revision is directed by the plaintiff against the order passed by the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, confirming the order of dismissal of the injunction application filed by him.

2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision can be briefly stated as follows :- The case of the petitioner is that the jointed Binny & Co. Madras, on 10th March, 1954, as a clerk at the registered office at Armenian Street, Madras. As per the appointment orders issued in 1966 for clerks like him, they will be required to work at the registered office at Armenian Street or at Carnatic House at Perambur and that there was no express service condition that they were liable for transfer. There was no office at Carnatic House when he joined, and while the clerical and subordinate staff were transferred from Armenian Street to Carnatic House in 1966 to 1984, they were given a disturbance allowance of Rs. 300/- which meant that they were not liable for transfer. He had also not been transferred in the last 34 years, and the request of the other clerical staff was also negatived on the ground that there was no provision for transfer in the service condition. In 19




















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