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

2002 Supreme(All) 906

VINEET SARAN
MAHABIR PRASAD PATHAK – Appellant
Versus
LABOUR COURT, ALLAHABAD – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
K.P.AGRAWAL, Mahima Maurya, V.R.Agrawal

VINEET SARAN, J.

( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the award dated 31st July, 1985 passed by the Labour court, Allahabad.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the admitted facts of this case are that the petitioner was appointed on 3. 10. 1967 as a fitter in the respondent-company, G. E. C. India Limited. Thereafter on 17. 10. 1968 the service of the petitioner was confirmed as fitter and on 3. 9. 1970 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Inspector. While working as Junior Inspector, the petitioner absented himself from 1. 10. 1982 to 26. 11. 1983. According to the petitioner he had absented himself from duty because of illness but his absence for more than a year was admittedly without any leave application. Thus on 26. 11. 1983, the service of the petitioner was terminated and in compliance with the provisions of section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial disputes Act, 1947, the employer gave him one months salary in lieu of notice. The said payment was made by the respondent no. 2 by cheque which was accepted by the petitioner.

( 3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute under section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was









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