Dismissed

Ku. Sanjivani Devidas Pusadkar v. the Sub Divsnl Officer, Bhandara and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC13 Feb 2013WP/1622/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged Writ Petition No. 1622/2012 impugning a Central Government Industrial Tribunal Award that refused reinstatement but granted Rs.50,000 compensation. The High Court, allowing facts, dismissed the writ petition, holding the compensation was appropriate and the order just.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Ku. Sanjivani Devidas Pusadkar Vs the Sub… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

WP1622-12

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1622/2012

¶5

(SANJIWANI DEVIDAS PUSADKAR VERSUS THE S.D.O. BHANDARA & OTHERS)

¶6

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

¶8

Shri P.M. Deshkar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Agrawal, counsel for the R-1 to 3.

¶9

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 13, 2013.

¶10

By this petition, the petitioner impugns the Award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal on 03.03.2011 so far as it refuses to grant reinstatement to the petitioner with back wages. According to the petitioner, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal ought to have granted more amount to the petitioner towards monetary compensation.

¶11

The petitioner had worked as a Casual Office Assistant with the respondent no.1 from 20.11.1981 to 31.01.1984 only. Though the petitioner had completed 240 days of service and the provisions of Sections 25-F were not complied by the respondents before terminating the services of the petitioner, on a perusal of the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal rightly granted compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner. The petitioner was working as a Casual Office Assistant nearly 30 years earlier and considering the time spent during which the petitioner was litigating before the various authorities and the other facts of the case, it cannot be said that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal was not justified in granting monetary compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner. It also

¶12

WP1622-12

¶13

¶14

cannot be said that grant of compensation of Rs.50,000/- is meager and the Central Government Industrial Tribunal ought to have granted more compensation to the petitioner. The impugned order is just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.

¶15

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶16

JUDGE

¶17

APTE

Ku. Sanjivani Devidas Pusadkar v. the Sub Divsnl Officer, Bhandara and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Sanjivani Devidas Pusadkar v. the Sub Divsnl Officer, Bhandara and 3 Ors.

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

Regional Dairy Dev. Officer,Amt. Vs Ramesh Ramrao Bobade and and 14 Ors.

Regional Dairy Dev. Officer,Amt. Vs Ramesh Ramrao Bobade and and 14 Ors.

Regional Dairy Dev. Officer,Amt. Vs Ramesh Ramrao Bobade and and 14 Ors.

Rakesh Rahandomal Bhojwani and Ors. Vs Rajesh Randhomal Bhojwani and Ors.

Vasant Dattatraya Deshmukh and 3 Ors. Vs Rajanibai Bhimrao Deshmukh and 4 Ors.

General Manager, Western Coal Fields Ltd. and Another Vs Dhumansingh S/O Tikaram Kachhawaha and Another