The Managing Director vs The Presiding Officer on 30 August, 2011
The learned counsel also cited the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in AIR 1959 SC 1111 (Phulbari Tea Estate v. Workmen); decisions of the Bombay High Court in 1995 (2) LLJ 586 (Sinnar Bidi Ydyog Limited v. Shri Keru Murlidhar Varhade & Others); & 1995 Lab.IC 1496 (C.M.Deshmukh v. Board of Trustees, Port of Bombay); decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court reported in 1975 Lab.IC 986 (Tarlochan Singh v. State of Punjab); and the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 2004 ALT 656 (Assistant Director of sericulture, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District v. G.lalitha Devi and another) in support of his contention and argued that if the writ petition is allowed, the second respondent's rights will be seriously prejudiced as he is now aged only 52 year and after the order of reinstatement the petitioner is getting 17B wages from 23.2.2007.