Gujarat Court February 1964 Judgments
Manilal Bhukhandas Chevli Vs. Industrial Court, Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-1964
Reported in: [1965(11)FLR14]; (1965)GLR369; (1965)ILLJ598Guj
Shelat, C.J.1. The petitioner carries on the business of manufacturing art silk cloth in the name and style of United Textile Manufacturing Company at Surat. Respondent 2 which is a representative union, filed an application in the third labour court at Ahmedabad against the petitioner inter alia for a declaration that he had committed an illegal change by changing the practice of assigning two looms per weaver to assigning three looms per weaver and thereby introducing rationalization, and prayed for the withdrawal of this change which he alleged was an illegal change. In his written statement, the petitioner denied that there was any rationalization as alleged and stated that no notice was required under the provisions of S. 42(1) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The petitioner also raised other contentions, but it is not necessary for us to consider them as they are no longer relied upon by the petitioner. The labour court held that the petitioner had brought about an i...
Tag this Judgment!Sarasvatiben Lallubhai Parikh and anr. Vs. Kantilal Purshottam Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-1964
Reported in: (1964)5GLR152
B.J. Divan, J.1. The petitioners in this Civil Revision Application are original defendants and the opponent is the original plaintiff in Suit No. 1118 of 1963 which was filed by the plaintiff as a Summary Suit. After the Summary Suit was filed appearance was entered on behalf of the defendants and a summons for judgment was taken out by the plaintiff. On that summons for judgment the plaintiff put in his affidavit in support of the summons for judgment and the defendants applied for leave to defend and also put in their affidavit-in-reply setting out their version of the facts which led to the disputes between the parties. According to the plaintiff there was a cheque for Rs. 2000/- drawn by the defendants in his favour and that cheque was not presented to the Bank because the defendants had asked that it should not be presented. In that affidavitin-reply the defendants contention was that the cheque was not given at all to the plaintiff but was drawn in the name of the plaintiff at t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›