Rajesh v. Jobanputra v Branch Manager United News India Andors
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court modified an earlier order directing an employer to pay full regular salary, allowing 50% payment in view of financial constraints and employee's acceptance, effective from the date of joining.
What did the court decide?
Order dated 23rd March, 2018 modified to allow 50% salary payment effective from joining date; 50% of arrears to be paid within two months.
What the court decided
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 242/2018
Rajesh V. Jobanputra S/o. Shri Vishanji Bhai, By Caste Lohana, Resident Of House No.16, Jai Ambay Colony, Majdoor Nagar, In Front Of Goverdhan Villa, Civil Line Behind Metro Station, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
- Branch Manager, United New India, Branch Office 70, Dhuleshwar Garden S.p. Marg, Jaipur.
- Chairman, United News India, Head Office, 9, Rafiq Marg, New Delhi-01.
- The Conciliation Officer And Labour Commissioner, Hasanpura, Nbc, Jaipur Region, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Govind Gupta on behalf of Mr. M.F. Baig
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order directing payment of full regular salary to an employee may be modified due to the employer's financial crisis and employee's willingness to accept 50% salary.
Whether the earlier order dated 10th January, 2018, in a connected writ petition should be modified to reflect the 50% payment arrangement.
Whether the employer is obligated to pay 50% of salary arrears within two months based on the modified order.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Rajesh V. Jobanputra
- respondent
Branch Manager, United New India
- respondent
Chairman, United News India
- respondent
The Conciliation Officer And Labour Commissioner
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Rajasthan HC
- Decided on
- · November
- Registered
- Case no.
- WMAP/242/2018
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court