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

1983 Supreme(P&H) 281

PREM CHAND JAIN, S.P.GOYAL, G.C.MITTAL
Manohar Lal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent


Judgment

Prem Chand Jain, J.

1. The petitioner, a Pump Operator, was working on purely temporary basis. His services were terminated by the Sectional Officer, in-charge, vide his letter dated 29th September, 1981, with effect from 30th September, 1981. The petitioner had challenged the legality of the said order. The petitioner came up for motion hearing on 20th July, 1982. On the basis of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewarage Board v. Rajappa 1978-II L.L.J. 73, notice of motion was issued by the Bench. In response to that notice the respondents put in appearance and filed written statement, in which the material allegations made in the petition have been controverted. At the time of final motion hearing, one of the points that arose for consideration was that the present petition was not maintainable as the petitioner should have first availed of the alternative remedy under the Act by claiming a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The stand taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that remedy under the Act was neither adequate nor speedy nor efficacious and that the peti

















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