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

1960 Supreme(MP) 143

S.P.BHARGAVA, P.V.DIXIT
Shri Abdul Salam – Appellant
Versus
Abdul Khalik Abdul Samad – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
H.L.Khaskalam, Y.S.Dharmadhikari,

JUDGMENT :

( 1. ) THIS order shall also dispose of Miscellaneous Petition No. 31 of 1959.

( 2. ) THESE two petitions are by the managing partner of a Public Transport Company, Seoni, who is an employer as defined in Section 2, (11) of the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947. The respondent Abdul Khalik in Miscellaneous Petition No. 30 of 1959 was employed by the company as a conductor. Bashiruddin, respondent No. 1, in Miscellaneous Petition No. 31 of 1959 was also similarly employed. Abdul Khaliks services were terminated from 1st June, 1957 after giving him one months notice. Bashiruddins services were also dispensed with on 24th March, 1957 and he was paid one months salary in lieu of notice. Thereupon, the two conductors filed applications under Section 16 of the Act before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh, Jabslpur, for reinstatement claiming back wages. The Assistant Labour Commissioner found that the services of the conductors had been terminated but that the orders terminating their services were not legal inasmuch as they were passed by the company in violation of the principles of natural justice which it was bound to follow in the abs





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