This single-paragraph order dismisses the writ petition. It affirms the Labour Court's finding that the petitioner failed to prove oral termination of services by the respondent, denying reinstatement and back wages.
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
jpc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1104 OF 2010
Raghunath Atmaram Tarlekar Versus
M/s Harshi Medical Stores & others
..Petitioner
..Respondents
Mr. N. M. Ganguli for the petitioner
Mr. Ashish Kamath for the Respondents
CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 14th July, 2010.
P.C.
Heard.
Only the dispute qua oral termination dated 1.4.2006 was referred to the 3rd Labour Court, Mumbai for adjudication. The learned Presiding Officer, 3rd Labour Court, Mumbai has by the impugned order correctly come to the conclusion that since the second party has not proved that his services were orally terminated as alleged, he is not entitled to have reinstatement with or without back wages and continuity of service.
In view thereof, the petitioner does not deserve admission and the same is dismissed.
( S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. )
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement given that the respondent failed to prove oral termination.
Raghunath Atmaram Tarlekar
M/s Harshi Medical Stores & others
S.J. KATHAWALLA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
