S. K. SEN, R. K. AGRAWAL
PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH – Appellant
Versus
UTTAR PRADESH STATE SUGAR CORPORATION – Respondent
( 1 ) THE present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21. 7. 1998 passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8483 of 1993, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy in view of the Full Benchs decision in the case of Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director, U. P. Co-operative Union, 1991 (2)UPLBEC 898.
( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant/writ petitioner was appointed as Legal Assistant on 4. 12. 1988 in Nawabganj Sugar Mill Company Limited, district gonda, a unit wholly owned and controlled by the U. P. State Sugar Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation ). Subsequently vide order dated 6. 7. 1989, he was transferred to Shahganj Sugar Mills, i. e. , another unit owned by the Corporation. His services were confirmed by the Corporation vide order dated 5. 7. 1990. It appears that the appellant-writ petitioner absented himself from duty since 23. 9. 1992. According to him, he was ill and had sent medical certificate along with an application by registered post for grant of necessary leave on 23. 9. 1992 itself. He
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai and Ors.
Kamta Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors.
Cooper Engineering Work Limited v. P.P. Munder
Aligarh Muslim University and Ors. v. Mansoor Ali Khan
Executive Committee, Vaish Degree College v. V. Lakshmi Narain
Hridya Narain v. Income Tax Officer, Bareilly
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.