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

2000 Supreme(MP) 285

FAIZAN UDDIN, N.G.KARAMBELKAR
PRAKASH DRAVID – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
K.B.Chaturvedi, M.C.Jain, R.P.Gupta, VIJAY SUNDARAM

FAKHRUDDEV, N. G. KARAMBELKAR, JJ.

( 1 ) THESE four Letters Patent Appeals have been filed against a common order dated november 2, 1997 passed by a learned single judge of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1364/1997, 1360/1997, 1270/1997 and 1267/1997, out of which these appeals arise, and shall be disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) THE appellants/petitioners who were workmen filed the aforesaid petitions for a direction that the respondents shall continue them in service and shall regularise them in service on the ground that their termination from service is illegal. It is contended that they are entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the act ). Return was filed in W. P. No. 1358/1997 and it was adopted by the counsel for the respondents in other cases also. The learned writ Court considered the entire material on record in great detail in paras 5 to 11, In para 9 the learned single Judge while dealing with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act relied on the decisions in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Orissa AIR 1977sc31: 1976 (4) SCC222 : 1977-I-LLJ-1, mohanlal v, Bharat Electronics Ltd. AIR 198








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