Uttaranchal Court July 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Co ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR135]; (2003)ILLJ269UC
ORDERP.C. Verma, J. 1. All these writ petitions have been filed impugning the award dated December 23, 1999 made by the Labour Court by one and common judgment, holding respondent No. 2, in all these writ petitions, workmen of the petitioner and cessation from their work amounting to retrenchment in violation of provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and directed the reinstatement of all the respondent No. 2, in all these writ petitions, and further awarded Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses to each workman in all these writ petitions considering the weak financial position of the petitioner.2. Petitioner-Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited (for short IDPL) is a public undertaking fully owned and controlled by the Government of India. It has its unit at Virbhadra, Rishikesh, district Dehradun. The policy for appointment for the widows/dependents of the workmen dying-in-harness is in force in the IDPL. Several applications for em...
Bal Krishna Pandey Vs. Sanjeev Bajpayee
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Jul-01-2002
Reported in: AIR2004Utr1; 2004(1)AWC908(UHC)
ORDERIrshad Hussaln, J.1. This appeal under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 9.8,2000 passed by the then Addl. District Judge, Dehradun in Miscellaneous Case No. 70 of 1996, Bal Kishan Pande v. Sanjeev Bafpai on a petition of the appellant, for his appointment as the guardian of his minor grand-daughter, Kumari Swati (daughter's daughter) and to allow him to retain the custody of the said minor. Petition was preferred as provided under Section 10 of Chapter II of the Act relating to appointment and declaration of guardian of the minor. By the impugned judgment and order, the petition was dismissed and the appellant was directed to hand over the custody of the minor to her father, the respondent.2. The relevant dates having bearing on the facts of the case are mentioned first :8.12.1989--Smt. Sunita daughter of the appellant was married to the respondent, the father of the minor...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›