Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J
V.VILVANATHAN – Appellant
Versus
COMMANDANT – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. second appeal arises from lower court judgments. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. plaintiff’s background and grounds for suit. (Para 3) |
| 3. defendants argue based on employee misconduct. (Para 4) |
| 4. procedural claims regarding termination and jurisdiction. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 5. court's assessment on employee classification and legal status. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. clarification on urc employees’ status by apex court. (Para 10 , 12) |
| 7. established procedures for employee disciplinary actions. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 8. alleged procedural lapses impact termination legality. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 9. earlier judgments support appellant's claims. (Para 17 , 19) |
| 10. court orders reinstatement citing procedural failures. (Para 18 , 21) |
JUDGMENT
The second appeals arise out of the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2018 passed in A.S.No.126 of 2017 on the file of the XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2017 in O.S. No.744 of 2014 on the file of the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
2.This second appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff.
The suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaring that the impugned order of termination dated 30.10.2013 is illegal and 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
