Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
N.J. Jamadar, J
Nitin Ganpat Dingankar – Appellant
Versus
The Indian Express (P) Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's employment history. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. challenge to transfer as unfair labor practice. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. conditions surrounding transfer authority. (Para 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. mala fide nature and burden of proof. (Para 14 , 18 , 20) |
| 5. final judgment dismissing the writ petition. (Para 24) |
ORDER :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. This Petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 29 January 2021 in Complaint (ULP) No.267 of 2017 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai, whereby the learned Member dismissed the complaint preferred by the Petitioner alleging unfair labour practices under Items 3, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (the Act, 1971).
3. The background facts can be stated as under :
3.1 In the year 1992, the Petitioner was appointed under an appointment letter dated 24 February 1992 to the post of ‘Assistant Layout Man’ in a ‘Samakaleen’, a Gujarati newspaper, then printed and published in Mumbai by the Respondent No.1. In the year 2005, the services of vario
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
