REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

NAGAR PALIKA AHREORA Appellant

V/S

PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

ARJUN V. JAMNADAS [REFERRED TO]
NAGAR MAHAPALIKA,BAREILLY V. LABOUR COURT,BAREILLY AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED V. S. M. JADHAV AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARAIN ARORA V. ASHA RANI AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
STATE GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI V. SUNIL AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD V. SAKHARAM SITARAM SHINDE [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL NARAIN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD IKRAM HUSSAIN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ MOHAN SINGH VS. PRIYA BRAT NARAIN SINHA [REFERRED TO]
MAHARAJA PRATAP SINGH BABADUR VS. THAKUR MANMOHAN DEY [REFERRED TO]
AJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SATYA PAL DANG DR BALDEV PARKASH [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRASAD SHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
RAM MURTI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ASSAM VS. DAKSHA PRASAD DEKA [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN GOVIND GAVATE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA:NARAYAN GOVIND GAVATE [REFERRED TO]
SONE LAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
HARPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BIRAD MAL SINGHVI VS. ANAND PUROHIT [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT SINGH DALLU NATHU RAM RAM PHAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. M HAYAGREEV SARMA [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION VS. K S GANDHI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. BHAWANI SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BOARD OF MUSLIM WAKFS VS. HADI BEGUM [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BHADRAK RANDB DIVISION ORISSA VS. RANGADHAR MALLIK [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. HARNAM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BURN STANDARD COMPANY LIMITED VS. DINABANDHU MAJUMDAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. RAMANATH PATNAIK [REFERRED TO]
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION VS. S RAGHUNATHAN:S P SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL BOARD SAHARANPUR VS. IMPERIAL TOBACCO OF INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
K BHASKARAN VS. SANKARAN VAIDHYAN BALAN [REFERRED TO]
SUPDT NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU CHENNAI VS. R PAULSAMY [REFERRED TO]
G M BHARAT COKING COAL LTD VS. SHIB KUMAR DUSHAD [REFERRED TO]
UPDESH KUMAR VS. PRITHVI SINGH [REFERRED TO]
ATUL CASTINGS LIMITED VS. BAWA GURVACHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAM DEO CHAUHAN ALIAS RAJ NATH CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. MOHANLAL SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
VITHAL N SHETTI VS. PRAKASH N RUDRAKAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. GULAICHI [REFERRED TO]
GANGA RAM VS. PHULWATI [REFERRED TO]
RAMAKANT BINDAL VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
BIMLESH SHARMA VS. ELECTRICITY BOARD [REFERRED TO]
SOMASUNDARSHAN GOUD VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR HYDERABAD [REFERRED TO]
JHAMAN LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
ANOP SINGH RATNU VS. MAHARSHI DAYANAND SARASWATI UNIVERSITY AJMER [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri K.G. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and none appears on behalf of respondent No. 2 Jai Singh.

(2.) In this petition the award dated 15.2.1984 enclosed as Annexure-8 has been challenged whereby the respondent No. 2 Jai Singh was allowed to work upto 17.8.1983 and was allowed to receive salary from 1.12.1981 to 17.8.1983.

(3.) It appears that Sri Raghunath the respondent No. 2 was appointed as a class-IV employee and in one of his service book his date of birth was entered as 18.1.1919 and in another one the date of birth was interpolated and was written as 18.1.1923. On the basis of physical examination of respondent report of dated 18.8.1979 by C.M.O. the estimated age of Sri Raghunath was assessed about 55 years, however treating the date of birth as 18.1.1919, the respondent was to retire on 18.1.1979 after completing 60 years of age. However, at the fag-end of career the respondent Raghunath submitted an application for correction of date of birth and on the basis of limited estimated age the Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Allahabad, has directed in the award in question to take the date of birth of Sri Raghunath as 18.1.1923 and to retire the petitioner on 17.8.1983 in place of 18.1.1979 and to give salary etc. from 1.12.1981 to 17.8.1983 under bona fide impression the petitioner was not retired on 17.1.1983 and was allowed to retire on 17.1.1979 and by virtue of acknowledging the date of birth as entered in the service book the respondent No. 2 was allowed to be given salary upto 17.8.1983. It is pertinent to note that the respondent No. 2 Raghunath has not worked from 17.1.1979 to 17.8.1983.

Click here to view full judgment.

NAGAR PALIKA AHREORA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address