Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Amit Borkar, J
Santosh Chandrkant Potdar – Appellant
Versus
Bajaj Auto Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. workman's termination post-enquiry during pending references. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. contentions on pendency, section 33(2)(b), reinstatement. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. section 33 protects against victimization during pendency. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. pendency till 30 days post-award publication mandatory. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. no approval renders dismissal inchoate; reinstates automatically. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. back wages adjusted for interim self-employment. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 7. reinstatement with continuity, partial back wages ordered. (Para 40) |
JUDGMENT:
1. Since both the present writ petitions arise out of a common Award, involve identical questions of law, and arise from the same factual background, it is considered appropriate to hear and decide them together. Accordingly, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Writ Petition No.15252 of 2024 has been instituted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner- workman, challenging the Award dated 18 January 2024 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane in Complaint (IT) No
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
