High CourtsDivision Bench(2002) 09 BOM CK 0123

Indamer Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Pricy D''Souza (Ms.) and Others

Bombay High Court · Decided on 11 September 2002 · Citation: (2004) 2 LLJ 16

HON’BLE JUDGES
Nishita Mhatre, J · H.L. Gokhale, J
CASE NUMBER
O.O.C.J. Appeal No. 822 of 2002 in Writ Petition No. 2199 of 2002

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 197 words
1.

Heard Mr. Cama for the appellants. Mr. Singh appears for the Respondents.

2.

We have perused the order passed by the learned single Judge and we are not inclined to interfere therewith. All that the learned single Judge has done is stayed the transfers and directed the Industrial Court to hear the complaint expeditiously. The order was passed considering the fact that the first respondent is a lady employee (steno-receptionist) the second respondent a technician and third respondent is a carpenter and are employees drawing low scales of pay. They were sought to be transferred to Delhi though the power to effect the transfer is disputed. The complaint is pending in the Industrial Court and this is an interim arrangement. In view of the persuasion by Mr. Cama, we direct the Industrial Court to endeavour to decide the complaint by the end of March 2003.

3.

We clarify further that the Industrial Court will decide the complaint on the merits of submissions and evidence before it. The observations made by the learned single Judge are on prima facie basis and that will be borne in mind by the Industrial Court.

4.

Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.