In a writ petition challenging employment benefits, the bench held that due to the petitioner not attaining permanency per the Industrial Court judgment, the court's prior decision in WP No. 2946/1997 does not apply, and the writ petition is dismissed.
Writ petition disposed of. No costs. Petitioner not entitled to relief claimed.
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 34-WP-7699-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.7699 OF 2019
ISMAIL HASABHAI PATHAN
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...RESPONDENTS
Mr. A.N. Kakade, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. P.M. Kulkarni, AGP for Respondents-State
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATE : 26th SEPTEMBER, 2019
ORAL ORDER:
[ ANIL S.KILOR ] [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE JUDGE
mta
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed given the lack of permanency grant by the Industrial Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ Petition No. 2946/1997Relied on¶2
Ismail Hasabhai Pathan
The State of Maharashtra
S.V. Gangapurwala
Anil S. Kilor
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
