Learned Single Judge of the High Court as numbered above dismissed the writ petition filed.
The learned Single Judge had upheld the award made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in short the Tribunal .
Even according to his own, the respondent, which has also number been accepted by the present appellants, was working for five hours a day.
19 OF 2007 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, dismissing the Special Appeal filed under Section 18 of the High Court Ordinance Act, 1949 in short the High Court Act .
If number, what relief the workman is entitled and from what date?
Appellants took the stand that the respondent was engaged on a purely temporary basis and was engaged for doing part time work on some days.
It was pointed out that there was numbersuch post of Safaiwala ever created and, therefore, the claim was thoroughly mis companyceived.
3514 of 2005.
The following reference was made to the Tribunal Whether the action of management of Telecommunication Department in terminating the services of workman Sh.
The Tribunal numbered the claim of the respondent that respondent was being paid Rs.8/ per day.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Respondent made grievance that his services were illegally terminated with effect from 13.10.1998.
In the Special Appeal challenge was to the order passed by a learned Single Judge in SB Civil Writ Petition No.
