Supreme Court had held that in the case of termination of a casual employee what is required to be seen is whether he had completed ... reinstatement in cases of wrongful dismissal has been held to be not without exception. Insofar as wrongful termination of daily-rated workers is concerned, this
awarded to the first petitioner by way of damages for the wrongful termination of job work agreement by the first respondent and accordingly fixed
respondent. The Tribunal passed an award, while holding that the termination order was wrong, granting certain claims in favour of the petitioner. The counter claims ... well as the first respondent. Merely because the termination order was found to be wrong, the petitioner is not entitled for the amount as claimed
also urged that the onus of proving valid termination of the contract was wrongly placed by the arbitrator on the appellant-Corporation instead of requiring
Tribunal awarded liquidated damages even after the period of termination. There is nothing wrong in the Tribunal taking into consideration the amount mentioned in Clause ... appearing for the petitioner that the Tribunal was wrong in extending it till 15.02.2012, though the termination was on 09.05.2009. On the date of termination
Tribunal awarded liquidated damages even after the period of termination. There is nothing wrong in the Tribunal taking into consideration the amount mentioned in Clause ... appearing for the petitioner that the Tribunal was wrong in extending it till 15.02.2012, though the termination was on 09.05.2009. On the date of termination
agreement entered
between the parties?
7.Whether the termination of the agreement by the
claimant is wrongful?
8.Whether the arbitration claim is barred
entitled for any relief. This Court does not find anything wrong in the termination order, which was specified by a notice. The order
therefore, termination orders were passed followed by awarding of the contract in favour of the third parties. Alleging that termination orders were passed wrongly
between the appellant and the respondents.
25. The learned single Judge had wrongly decided that the appellant was not entitled to the specific performance ... unilateral termination of the contract, without assigning any reasons. The respondents ought not to have been permitted to take advantage of their own wrong
