This single-judge order partly allowed a writ petition. The court set aside the impugned judgment and order, remanding the matter to the Industrial Court for a re-hearing, and permitted procedural amendments.
Impugned judgment and order set aside; matter remanded to Industrial Court for re-hearing; petitioner permitted to amend complaint.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2533 OF 2002
Saudhar Gochan Kahar .. Petitioner
versus
N.T.C. (M.N)Ltd. & ors. .. Respondents
Mr.P.M. Patel for the petitioner
Ms.Nandini Menon for the respondent nos.2 and 3.
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK,J.
DATED : 11th July 2005.
P.C.:
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the parties state that
the facts in this petition are similar to the facts
in Writ Petition no.2587 of 2002 decided on 29th June
2005.
3. Learned counsel also state that the point of
law involves in both the petitions are identical and
therefore similar order should be passed. Hence, for
the reasons recorded in my order dated 29th June 2005
in Writ Petition no.2857 of 2002, the following order
is passed.
4. Petition is partly allowed. Impugned
judgement and order is set aside and the matter is
remanded back for re-hearing before the Industrial
Court, Mumbai.
5. Petitioner is permitted to carry out the
amendment in the complaint to incorporate the events
which have happened subsequent to the filing of the
original complaint. Respondents are permitted to
file their written statement/amend the written
statement if filed already. The matter shall be
decided afresh in the light of observations made in
the order dated 29th June 2005 in Writ
Petition no. 2857 of 2002.
6. Parties shall appear before the Industrial
Court on 1st August 2005.
D.G. KARNIK, J
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition should be allowed, set aside, and remanded back for re-hearing before the Industrial Court.
Saudhar Gochan Kahar
N.T.C. (M.N)Ltd.
D.G. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court