Gujarat Court September 2012 Judgments
Supabhai Vestabhai Vasava Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-06-2012
The present Appeal is at the instance of a convict accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and is directed against an order of conviction and sentence dated 26th September 2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narmada at Rajpipla in Sessions Case No.16 of 2007. By the aforesaid order, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and consequently, sentenced him to suffer Life Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine the appellant was directed to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months. The learned Sessions Judge also convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. However, the learned Sessions Judge has not imposed any sentence or fine so far as the offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act is concerned. I. Case of the Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Executive Engineer Vs. Raval Vitthalbhai Sagrambhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioners, first party employer in Reference (L.C.A.) No.1179/2000 have approached this Court by way of this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award and order dated 21.05.2010, whereby the concerned Labour Court while partly allowing the reference directed the petitioners to reinstate the workmen on their original posts with 20% of back wages and imposed Rs.1000/cost. 3. The facts leading to filing of this petition deserve to be set out as under. 4. The workmen were constrained to raise industrial dispute, as though they were serving as daily wagers since 20.12.1989. Their services were terminated unceremoniously vide order dated 07.10.1999. The workmen have claimed that before terminating their services, the provision of Industrial Disputes Act especially Section 25F was not followed. The said dispute was referred to the Labour Court wherein, it is number...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›