The Executive Engineer. Vs. Deepak Kumar.

The Executive Engineer. vs Deepak Kumar.

Type Court Judgment Court Himachal Pradesh Decided Mar 03, 2011

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/916962

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/916962
Court: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Judge: Kurian Joseph; V.K. Ahuja, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 03, 2011
Case Number: CWP No.8101 of 2010.
Subject: Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[MR. JUSTICE B.S. PATIL, J.] This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act. against the Judgment and Award dated: 29/1 1/2006 passed in MVC No. 4382/2004 on the file of the XI Additional Judge. Court of Small Causes. Member. MACT, Metropolitan Area. Bangalore. (SCCH-12), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation ...

Key legal issue: Constitution
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 226; Industrial Disputes Act - Section 10(1)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Executive Engineer.

Advocate Mr. J.K. Verma, Adv.

Respondent

Deepak Kumar.

Advocate Mr. Naresh Kaul, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 226; Industrial Disputes Act - Section 10(1)

Excerpt

[mr. justice b.s. patil, j.] this mfa is filed u/s 173(1) of mv act. against the judgment and award dated: 29/1 1/2006 passed in mvc no. 4382/2004 on the file of the xi additional judge. court of small causes. member. mact, metropolitan area. bangalore. (scch-12), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation with 12% interest.1. this civil writ petition under article 226 has been filed for quashing the award dated 22.02.2010 passed by the learned labour court-cum-industrial tribunal, dharamshala in reference petition no. 93/2006. 2. heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. the reference under section 10(1) of the industrial disputes act, 1947 was answered by the labour court in favour of the respondent.4. in so far as the orders passed re-instating the petitioner are concerned, it calls for no interference by this court after considering the impugned award. however, in so far as the order directing payment of back-wages is concerned to the extent of 25 per cent with effect from 1st september, 2002, we are of the view that since the petitioner has not adduced any reliable evidence on entitlement for backwages, he shall not be entitled to 25 per cent back-wages and the order is modified accordingly to that extent. however, the respondent shall stand reinstated forthwith accordingly. 5. with these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Full Judgment

1. This Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 has been filed for quashing the award dated 22.02.2010 passed by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala in reference petition No. 93/2006.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was answered by the Labour Court in favour of the respondent.

4. In so far as the orders passed re-instating the petitioner are concerned, it calls for no interference by this court after considering the impugned award. However, in so far as the order directing payment of back-wages is concerned to the extent of 25 per cent with effect from 1st September, 2002, We are of the view that since the petitioner has not adduced any reliable evidence on entitlement for backwages, he shall not be entitled to 25 per cent back-wages and the order is modified accordingly to that extent. However, the respondent shall stand reinstated forthwith accordingly.

5. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Same Court & Year Himachal Pradesh · 2011 Same Parties The Executive Engineer. vs Deepak Kumar. Same Subject Constitution Same Judge Kurian Joseph; V.K. Ahuja, JJ. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 226; Industrial Disputes Act ...

Constitution