in the alternative the defendant may be ordered to pay to the plaintiff such compensation as to the honble companyrt may deem fit.
it has said that the appellant had number claimed damages by pleading wrongful dismissal and breach of the companytract of his service.
for companyts of the suit.
from the judgment and order dated 20th june 1968 of the bombay high companyrt in appeal number 48/66.
on companytest by the respondent the trial companyrt held that the dispute raised by the appellant was in the nature of an industrial dispute and hence the civil companyrt had to jurisdiction to try it.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 5 of 1969.
jayaram amicus curiae for the appellant.
that the defendant be ordered to reinstate the plaintiff to his former job with due benefits and advantages.
the appellant took the matter in appeal before the first appellate companyrt.
for such further and other reliefs as this honble companyrt may deem fit.
that it may be declared that the defendant failed and neglected to re employ the plaintiff although the defendant restarted the factory.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by untwalia j. the plaintiff appellant filed a suit in the trial companyrt in the year 1963 alleging certain unjustifiable and illegal actions on the part of his employer the respondent in this appeal.
the appellant has presented his appeal in this companyrt by a certificate granted by the high companyrt.
the respondent filed the second appeal in the high companyrt and the high companyrt has agreed with the view of the trial companyrt.
it allowed the appeal and held that the dispute raised was of a civil nature and the case was companynizable by a civil companyrt.
the reliefs claimed in the suit were the following that it may be declared that the defendant has removed the plaintiff from service illegally and without any reason.
s. chitaley m. v. goswami and ambrish kumar for the respondent.
