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

2021 Supreme(UK) 98

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA
Shiv Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Prescribed Authority – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Ashish Joshi, Advocate, Suyash Pant, Advocate, Subhash Upadhyay, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The petitioner is a workman. He had sought a reference for adjudication of an Industrial Disputes under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, by raising his claim before the learned labour Court, as against the order of termination of his services dated 14.08.1989, by preferring the same on 24.10.1990. The said reference, which was sought for adjudication by the petitioner, was numbered as an Adjudication Case No. 171 of 1991, which has been decided by the learned Labour Court by answering the question, referred to against the petitioner/workman, by the impugned award dated 30.06.1995, which is presently under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2. A very short question, which has been attempted to be established before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reference of adjudication, as had been made by the State vide its Govt. Order No. 2513(HI/36) dated 27.08.1990, which was formulated to the following effect:-

3. It was from the pretext that the order of termination of services of the petitioner as a salesman, was bad because of the non-compliance of the provisions contained under Section 6N, of the Indust

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