Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Ashok Keshav Kadam and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Dec 2011CAL/124/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil application for condonation of delay in filing a Letters Patent Appeal and disposed of the appeal itself, holding the appellant lacked a prima facie case due to a factual finding affirmed by the Single Judge.

What did the court decide?

The civil application for condonation of delay and the Letters Patent Appeal were both dismissed and disposed of.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Ashok Keshav… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

pvr １ ca124-lpst39505

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.124 OF 2003

¶5

IN

¶6

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL(ST)NO.39505 OF 2002

¶7

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL(ST)NO.39505 OF 2002

¶8

1.The Sub Divisional Engineer
and others.

¶9

...Applicants/
Appellants

¶10

vs.

¶11

1.Shri.Ashok Keshav Kadam & Anr....Respondents

¶12

Mr.A.D.Kansoo, AGP for Applicants/Appellants.

¶13

CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH &
ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.

¶14

DATED: 7th December,2011.

¶15

P.C.:-

¶16

1.This civil application is taken out for

¶17

condonation of delay in filing Letters Patent

¶18

Appeal. The delay is of 140 days. In order to

¶19

pvr ２ ca124-lpst39505

¶20

find out whether the appellant has prima facie

¶21

case, we have heard the learned Counsel appearing

¶22

for applicants-appellants. We find that the

¶23

learned Single Judge has rejected the writ
petition filed on behalf of the Sub-Divisional
Engineer, Minor Irrigation Sub Division,
challenging the Award made by the Labour Court

¶24

dated 8.2.2001 wherein a Laborer is involved. A
finding of fact has been recorded that though he

¶25

had completed 240 day of service in a year,

¶26

without following the provisions of Section 25(F)
of the Industrial Disputes Act his services were

¶27

terminated. The Labour Court has considered the
chart submitted on behalf of the appellants and

¶28

has recorded a finding of fact that he has

¶29

completed 240 days of service in a year. In our

¶30

opinion, considering that it is a finding of fact
recorded by the Labour Court and considering that

¶31

it has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge

¶32

and also considering that he is a labourer who

¶33

was in service since 1992, it will not be

¶34

pvr ３ ca124-lpst39505

¶35

appropriate for this to Court to entertain the

¶36

appeal. The appellant does not have prima facie
case. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served
by condoning delay. The civil application is

¶37

disposed of. The appeal is also disposed of.

¶38

(ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.)

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Ashok Keshav Kadam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Ashok Keshav Kadam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahebrao Bhausaheb Kalate Vs State of Maharahstra and Ors.

Fortune Foods Ltd., Vs Regional Provident Fnd Comissioner and Anr.

Fortune Foods Ltd., Vs Regional Provident Fnd Comissioner and Anr.

Great Western Buildings Tenants Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 25 Ors.

M/S. Overnite Express Ltd. Vs Maharashtra Samarth Kamgar Sanghatana and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Ashok Keshav Kadam and Ors.