The High Court of Chhattisgarh modified an earlier order in a writ petition to correct the name of the counsel appearing for a respondent, holding that the petitioner's advocate was present at that hearing.
The earlier order dated 13/02/2019 was modified to reflect 'Shri Gary Mukhopadhayay' as the counsel for Respondent No. 3 instead of 'Shri Saleem Kazi'.
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
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 241 of 2019
Sukhi Ram S/o Tangu Aged About 73 Years R/o Sumedha, Police StationBalgi Project, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
For Applicant
: Mr. Gary Mukhopadhayay, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board
19/03/2019
2
Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge
Rohit
Sukhi Ram
Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act/ Dy. Chief Labour Comissioner (Central)
Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act/ Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)
Sub Area Manager S.E.C.L. Through Banki Colliery
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
