REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

TEXMACO LIMITED Appellant

V/S

ROSHAN SINGH Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

RAMJILAL CHIMANLAL SHARMA V. ELPHINSTONE SPINNING WEAVING MILL CO. LTD [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN EMPLOYED UNDER POWELLS LTD. V.POWELLES LTD [REFERRED TO]
ANIRUDH PANDEY V. BSRTC [REFERRED TO]
LIC OF INDIA V. JOHN ANTON D'SOUZA [REFERRED TO]
CROWN ALUMINIUM WORKS VS. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN HUME PIPE CO LIMITED VS. WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
BURHANPUR TAPTI MILLS LIMITED VS. BURHANPUR TAPTI MILLS MAZDOOR SANGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. M PADMANABHAN NAIR [REFERRED TO]
CHARAN SINGH VS. BIRLA TEXTILES [REFERRED TO]
D V KAPOOR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
JARNAIL SINGH VS. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS [REFERRED TO]
BAKSHISH SINGH UNION OF INDIA VS. DARSHAN ENGINEERING WORKS:DARSHAN ENGINEERING WORKS [REFERRED TO]
R KAPUR VS. DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION PAINTING AND PUBLICATION INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. K N DUTT [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. K BALAKRISHNA NAMBIAR [REFERRED TO]
SWADESHI COTTON MILLS VS. ASST LABIUR COMMR [REFERRED TO]
TRAVANCORE PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES LTD VS. REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PAI H VS. CANARA BANK [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A large number of Letters Patent Appeals have been filed against the judg- ment of the learned Single Judge dated 22.2.1992 by which a large number of writ peti- tion were disposed of. The questions of law involved in these appeals are exactly identical, therefore, we propose to dispose of these appeals by one'common judgment. The learned Single Judge also disposed of all the writ petitions by a common judgment.

(2.) The learned Single Judge has dealt with the facts of one writ petition. We also deem it appropriate to reiterate the facts of only LPA No. 58/1992 arising out of writ petition No. 1110/89 in order to appreciate the controversy involved in the case.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 joined the appellant company on 1/06/1943. On 2.1.1964 he was allotted-a residential quarter in the premises of the appellant mill. The respon- dent retired from service on 6.6.1983. The respondent was allotted a quarter on leave and licence basis on the specific condition that he would vacate the accommodation within 4 days of cessation of the service by the management. Admittedly till date the respondent has not vacated the quarter which is the main grievance of the appellant before us. In other connected appeals also the respondents-workmen have not vacated the quarters though they have retired from the service of the appellant mill several years ago.

Click here to view full judgment.

TEXMACO LIMITED Vs. ROSHAN SINGH

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address