Skip to content


Shiv Chand Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Haryana, Chandigarh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1980Supp(1)SCC12; 1980(12)LC500(SC)
AppellantShiv Chand
RespondentPresiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Haryana, Chandigarh and anr.
Excerpt:
.....retirement benefits - appellant was not entitled for any benefits for intervening period between date of termination of service and date of re-employment. - section 100: [s.b. sinha & dr. mukundakam sharma, jj] second appeal - question of fact - the jurisdiction of the high court in terms of section 100 is limited. it can interfere with the concurrent finding of two courts if any substantial question of law arises for its consideration. whether the respondent despite the fact that he was brother of the appellant was in a dominating position is essentially a question of fact. per se it does not give rise to a substantial question of law. indian contract act (9 of 1872) section 16 :[s.b.sinha & dr.mukundakam sharma,jj] undue influence held, relationship between the parties..........be taken into account alongwith the service which he may render now on re-employment, for the purpose of award and computation of retirement benefits, namely, provident fund and gratuity. we may make it clear that the appellant will not be entitled to any wages or other benefits in respect of the intervening period between the date of termination of his service and the date of re-employment. the appellant will report at the establishment of the second respondent on 1st april, 1980 or failing that era 2nd april, 1980 and the second respondent will offer him re-employment on the basis which we have indicated above. we order accordingly.2. there will be no order as to costs in this appeal.
Judgment:

P.N. Bhagwati, J.

1. The parties are agreed that the order impugned in the present appeal be maintained subject to the direction that the appellant shall be re-employed as a fresh employee in an equivalent post in the organisation of the second respondent in which he was working prior to the termination of his service, and the period during which he served the second respondent prior to the termination of his service will be taken into account alongwith the service which he may render now on re-employment, for the purpose of award and computation of retirement benefits, namely, provident fund and gratuity. We may make it clear that the appellant will not be entitled to any wages or other benefits in respect of the intervening period between the date of termination of his service and the date of re-employment. The appellant will report at the establishment of the second respondent on 1st April, 1980 or failing that era 2nd April, 1980 and the second respondent will offer him re-employment on the basis which we have indicated above. We order accordingly.

2. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //