The prospects for a results oriented man are excellent.
Both parties led evidence in the reference before the Labour Court.
The relevant part from the advertisement which pertains to the duties required to be performed by the selected candidates was as follows The selected candidate will advise the Corporate personal Department and through it various establishments of the Company on all matters relating to Labour Laws operate various applications Page 2628 and claims and appear selectively before Labour authorities such as Conciliation Officers, Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals.
695 of 1996.
Both the appellant as well as the Company filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court against the aforesaid award dated 31.10.1994 passed by the Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Bombay.
CL IDE AJD/2A G 772 84 referred the matter for adjudication.
695 of 1996 filed by the present appellant, thus quashing the award of the Labour Court dated 31.10.1994.
462 of 1995 filed by the Company and dismissed Writ Petition No.
Both the appeals were filed to set aside the companymon judgment and order passed in Writ Petition Nos.
The appellant subsequently filed Civil Appeal No.
462/95 and 695/96 by a learned Single Judge on 13.4.1999.
1879 of 1999 came to be filed by the appellant.
Consequently, in 1985, the present appellant filed his statement of claim in the Reference Court being the First Labour Court at Bombay.
It is against this judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Civil Appeal No.
Being aggrieved by such termination, the appellant attempted to get his grievance redressed through the Deputy Commissioner of Labour Conciliation but the Conciliation failed and ultimately the Deputy Commissioner of Labour Conciliation by his order of Reference No.
In pursuance of the appointment letter, the appellant joined services of the Company on 13.7.1977.
Ability to get on with people.
11.12.1982 to 30.11.1989 with all companysequential benefits including pay revision if any.
170 of 2000 which also impugned the same judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
462 of 1995 and the appellant filed Writ Petition No.
The appellant led his own evidence and on behalf of the respondent company the evidence of one R.P. Bharucha who was then the Director of the Family Products Division of the Company, who had been the Central Personal Manger of the Company at the time when the appellant had been appointed and had been the Chief Personnel Manager of the Company on the date of the Appellants termination was led.
Since both the writ petitions impugned the same award, they were heard and disposed of by a companymon judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 13.4.1999.
This was primarily on the ground that appellant had given false information at the time of appointment.
1 Glaxo SmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. indicated their intention to advertise the post of Industrial Relations Executive.
Though the terms and companyditions of appointment were companytained in this appointment letter, the exact nature of duties and functions to be performed were number laid down therein.
Three to five years experience of litigation before Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals and other authorities.
On 15.9.1982, vide a termination letter dated 15.9.1982, the services of the appellant came to be terminated from the close of business on that day.
The Company filed Writ Petition No.
Notwithstanding his companyclusion that the appellant was number a workman, and that the Industrial Court would number have any jurisdiction to decide the dispute, the learned Single Judge further dealt with the merits of the matter and Page 2630 arrived at the companyclusion that the Company had ample reason to resort clause 17 of the appointment letter and terminate the appellant.
This is a challenging job with a span of advice extending to three factories, four branches and fifteen u country depots.
Learned Single Judge did number accept the companytention and the Division Bench also did number accept the companytention.
Qualifications and Experience At least a First Class Law Degree, preferably a Masters Degree.
Age Around 30 years.
Both parties produced and relied upon documentary evidence in support of their respective claim.
The background facts in a nutshell are as follows On 4.8.1976 Glaxo Laboratories India Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the said Company which has number been taken over by the present respondent No.
Since members of the staff who fell in the category of Management Staff Grade III were also entitled to apply for the vacant post which fell in Management Staff Grade II, an advance staff numberice was also taken out by the Company.
The said termination was made in pursuance of clause 17 of the letter of appointment dated 17.8.1977 on the ground that the services of the petitioner were numberlonger required.
Ultimately the learned Single Judge made rule absolute in Writ Petition No.
On 17.3.1977 the Company issued a letter offering an appointment to the appellant as Industrial Relations Executive.
Detailed knowledge of case laws and proceedings pertaining to labour laws.
The same incorporated the text of the advertisement which was to follow.
Ultimately, by an award passed by the Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Bombay on 31.10.1994, the claim of the appellant was allowed and he was directed to be reinstated in service with companytinuity in service w.e.f.
Arijit Pasayat, J. Page 2627 Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ appeals filed by the appellant.
