Back
SUREPALLI NANDA
Madras Fertilizers Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. M.A. Shakeel, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and learned Senior Designate Counsel Mr. V. Hariharan, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2.
PRAYER:
2. The petitioners approached the court seeking prayer as under:
3. PERUSED THE RECORD:
6. In further reply to para.no. 4 to 10, it is true that I challenged the order of dismissal in L.C.I.D.215 of 2004 wherein after re-appreciating the evidence on record the Hon'ble Tribunal by order dated 16-1-2006
The principle of approbate and reprobate prevents a party from accepting benefits while simultaneously contesting the validity of the underlying order.
The High Court ruled that the CGIT has jurisdiction to appoint a commissioner for verifying workmen's entitlements to benefits under an award, clarifying that this falls within the scope of computing....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the employer must follow the relevant provisions of the I.D. Act before terminating the service of an employee, and failure to do so may entit....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement for temporary workers, as well as the principle of equitable treatment for simila....
Point of Law : Court does not find any cogent reasoning in the order of the Labour Court in so far as the denial of relief of reinstatement or back-wages is concerned.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
