ASHIMA DENIMS Vs. DHANJIBHAI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K.M. Patel, learned Senior Counsel, with Mr. V.K.Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner company, and Mr. Sharma, learned advocate for the respondent No.1. Though served (by affixing), no one has entered appearance for the respondent No.2.

(2.) In present petition, the petitioner company has placed under challenge:-

(3.) Before proceeding further, it is relevant to clarify that original claimant, i.e. present respondent No.1, was employee of present respondent No.2 company (Mihir Textile) and his service was terminated vide order dated 26.6.1993 by present respondent No.2, i.e. said Mihir Textile. However, subsequently, i.e. somewhere in 1994, present petitioner had taken over said respondent No.2 company.