Whether this companyrt has numberjurisdiction to entertain this petition ?
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 18, 1970 of the Labour Court, Delhi in L.C.A. No.
In the Allahabad case, however, the provision which directly came up for companystruction was s. 6H of the U.P. Industrial 1 1961 1 L.L.J. 729.
Whether the applicant is entitled to.
5,195/ as balance of salary at the rate of Rs.
D. A dlakha, Promod Swarup and S. S. Khanduja, for respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dua, J. Facts necessary for understanding the short but im portant point arising for decision in this appeal by special leave are these The appellant is a companypany incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office in New Delhi.
1501p.m.
for the period of suspension and also other allowances, the total amount companyputed being Rs.
During the period of suspension, on October 7, 1965, the respondent was trans ferred to Delhi.
He was dismissed from service on September 19, 1967.
The, Labour Court framed the following four issues Whether the application is number legally maintainable ?
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Pritam Singh Gill, respondent number 1, in this appeal was employed by the 1208Sup CI/72 appellant as Junior Engineer at its Bhopal office with effect from the 9th November, 1962 at Rs.
Its entire share capital has been subscribed by the Central Government.
A.I.R. 1969 Punjab 187.
On October 5, 1964 he was suspended and this order, of suspension remained in force till September 18, 1967.
P. Malhotra, N. S. Das Bahl, P. S. Mahindru and Sat Pal, for the appellant.
Whether the petitioner has been dismissed with effect from 19 9 1967, if so its effect ?
and decided all of them in favour of the respondent who was held entitled to Rs.
The appellant companytested the respondents claim on various grounds.
Following these Madras decisions a learned single Judge of the Punjab Haryana High Court in Bachittar Singh v. Central Labour Court, Jullundur 3 , a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court in The Management of Government Soap Factory, Bangalore v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Bangalore 4 and the Allahabad High Court in U.P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd., v. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Allahabad 5 took the same view.
1171 of 1970.
280/ p.m. as basic salary with other allowances.
On June 15, 1968 the respondent applied to the Labour Court at Delhi under s. 33C 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter called the Act for companyputing the benefits and amount he was entitled to receive alleging that the appellant had number paid to him such amounts and benefits.
any of the benefits claimed ?
709 of 1968.
