The single judge held that occasional late affixation of revenue stamps on vouchers does not invalidate them. Finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned award, the petition was dismissed.
Petition dismissed for lack of merit.
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.
Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAM DATT Signing Date:09.09.2024 16:54 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.
i€'-t .r-
8
:;^' L
Probably in some of the vouchers, the employer might have affixed the revenue stamp later. In any case, the said late affixation of the revenue stamp would not invalidate the said vouchers and at least would not support the stand of the petitioners that they had signed the said vouchers blank. The detailed cross-examination of all these petitioners was conducted and all these petitioners clearly took a stand that no action was taken by them against the Management for signing the said vouchers blank.
I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned
award.
There is no merit in the present petition and the same is
hereby dismissed.
AUGUST L2,?OLL dc
KATLASH GAMBH|R, J
'i.l
KATLASH GAMBHIR, J
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
