working in the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (in
short "SGPC"), Amritsar on daily wages @ Rs.70/- per day but he had falsely
stated ... proposal form that he was a permanent employee of the SGPC having
the income of Rs.1 lakh and having the service of 17 years
accepted by the respondents. Said
Kuldeep Singh was a temporary employee of SGPC and he died on
25.04.2006 and the doctor opined that the cause ... deceased was false, as neither he was permanent employee of SGPC, nor
First Appeal No.128 of 2008 3
had income
Members of the
Shiromany Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (in short "SGPC") and the
Additional Secretary Raghbir Singh but the appellant remained in Jail from ... During his absence, the Members of the SGPC and the
employees of the other Task Force of the Committee entered the building of
First Appeal
issued in respect of 1218 employees of
Dharam Parchar Committee of SGPC, Amritsar with regard to whom, an
amount ... said insurance policy of
1218 employees of the Dharam Parchar Committee, SGPC, Amritsar. The
appellant is jointly and severally liable to pay the insurance amount
Appellant.
Versus
1. Smt. Surinder Kaur widow of Sh. Pritpal Singh Supervisor SGPC
resident of H. No. 3480/9, Mohalla Hargobindpura Gate Hakiman,
Amritsar
arranged
meeting at 7:00 pm with the office bearers of SGPC, to finalize a
business contract. Due to this breakdown he was prevented ... meeting fixed at 7:00 pm with office bearers of SGPC, to finalize a
business contract. But due to the said breakdown
Jhar Sahib, Samrala, District Ludhiana, which is being run
and managed by SGPC, Amritsar, on 31.08.2015 and thereafter she
planned to have her own residential
been the President of
Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, a member of SGPC for
more than two decades, a member of Executive Committee, General
Secretary, Senior ... First Appeal No. 344 of 2012 Page 4 of 5
Committee of SGPC and also had been a Chairman/President of World
Sikh Council
issued by the petitioners in favour of Secretary, Dharam Parchar
Committee (SGPC) respondent No.1.
3. It was further pleaded that the petitioners failed
