The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging orders awarding additional gratuity. The court held not inclined to interfere with the quantum but restricted the precedent to the instant matter only.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 1480/1997
Sub-Area Manager, W.C.L. ..vs.. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) C.G.O. Complex, Nagpur and others
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Court's or Judge's Orders
Mr. Mehadia, Advocate for the petitioner.
CORAM: A. B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 12th November, 2008
2
26 days in a month after completion of service of 30 years and not full 30 days as basis. According to Mr. Mehadia, the only reason furnished by the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority is that it would be against the interest of the workmen. He further submitted that though it is true that the amount is too small, the effect of the orders made by the Controlling Authority would be far reaching in the entire establishment of the petitioner and the other sister establishments.
JUDGE
kahale
Sub-Area Manager, W.C.L.
Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) C.G.O. Complex, Nagpur and others
A. B. CHAUDHARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
