Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.16 seconds)
State Of Punjab vs Puran Singh on 14 February, 2001 cites

Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar vs Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors on 19 April, 1968

4. We do not find any infirmity in this finding. The non-production of muster rolls further comes in the way of the petitioner as it was the best evidence in its possession which has not been produced and an adverse inference has rightly been drawn in view of !he judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohammed Haji Latif and others, A.I.R. 1968 SC 1413.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 888 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Brij Bhushan vs Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court on 18 March, 1998

5. Regarding the next argument that respondent No. 1 was a backdoor entrant, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on in the case of Brij Bhushan v. Industrial , Trlbunal-cum-Labaiir Court, Panipat, 1998(3) SCT 17. However, we do not find it necessary to go into the aspect of that case, the reason is that in the reply submitted before the Labour Court, the petitioner has not taken up this plea. On the contrary, the plea taken is that respondent No. 1 was engaged for a specific work. However, it has not been shown to us as to what for specific work, respondent No. 1 was appointed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 7 - I Singh - Full Document
1