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

2000 Supreme(All) 913

S.P.SRIVASTAVA, G.P.MATHUR
PRATAPPUR SUGAR AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, GORAKHPUR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
P.K.MUKHERJI, Shyam Narain

G. P. MATHUR, J.

( 1 ) THE question which requires consideration here is whether a special appeal would lie against the judgment and order of a single Judge in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution wherein an order passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner under clause (LL) of the standing orders governing conditions of employment of workmen in Vaccum Pan Sugar Factories was subject-matter of challenge.

( 2 ) SURYA Narain Shahi, respondent No. 2 was appointed as cane-observer in the appellant pratappur Sugar and Industries Limited on 25. 10. 1956 and in the service book, his date of birth was entered as 16. 12. 1935. He became eligible to become member of Provident Fund Scheme and in P. F. Form II, he made a declaration on 10. 10. 1957, that his date of birth was 16. 12. 1935. On 12. 11. 1992, he made a representation to the appellant, that the entry regarding his date of birth be changed from 16. 12. 1935 to 1. 5. 1939, which was recorded as his date of birth in his high School Certificate. No action was, however, taken on the said representation. The appellant served a notice upon respondent No. 2 that he would attain the age of superannuation (60 years)on 16. 12. 1995























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