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

1970 Supreme(P&H) 102

S.S.SANDHAWALIA
Brham Sarup – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent


Judgment

1. Whether a person appointed as an authority under Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, must imperatively have experience as a Judge of the Civil Court or a stipendiary Magistrate is the sole question that has been agitated in these two connected Writ Petitions Nos. 1855 of 1969 and 1224 of 1970.

2. Learned counsel for the parties agreed that the determination of the above-said legal question would govern both these writ petitions. Mr. J. S. Chawla on behalf of the same writ petitioner in both the petitions has hence confined himself to the facts of Civil Writ No. 1224 of 1970. In order to appreciate the legal controversy, it deserves notice that the petitioner is the Management Director of the University Victory Bus Service Private Ltd., and respondent No. 4, Chaudhry Ram was an employee of the company above-said. A dispute regarding the quantum of wages due to respondent No. 4 arose between the parties and the latter approached the authorities under the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) at Ambala, which proceeding was decided in his favour vide annexure A. In compliance with this decision of the authority, the petitioner made the direc


























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