Jayantilal Damji Pandit v. Seth Cursondas Natha
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 s. 33C(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Heard, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Respondent. The learned Single Judge, in our view, has rightly found that this is not a case where claim could have been decided under section 33C (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The learned Judge has…
Judgment
Shri Mahendra Agavekar, Advocate i/b. H. Kumar Vaidyanathan. Shri Sanjay Udeshi, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : P. B. MAJMUDAR & R. V. MORE, JJ. DATED : 5th DECEMBER, 2009. P.C.: Appeal is taken for admission, today. The Registry is directed to give appropriate number to the Appeal.
Heard, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Respondent. The learned Single Judge, in our view, has rightly found that this is not a case where claim could have been decided under section 33C (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The learned Judge has rightly found that the issue involved in the matter cannot be decided under section 33C (2) of the Act and if the Appellant has any grievance in this behalf, he can raise appropriate dispute before the Industrial Court. We are in agreement with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge. The Appeal is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)
(P. B. MAJMUDAR, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 33C(2).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 05 Dec 2009. The bench was R V MORE, P B MAJMUDAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.