Bombay High Court
WRIT PETITION 493 of 1988 on 25 June 1987
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION NO. 493 OF 1988
Chandra Bhushan Agarwal... Petitioner
V/s
M/s. Scooters India Ltd.... Respondent
Mr. A.V. Burkhari for the petitioner.Mr. S.P. Bharti for the respondent.
CORAM: R.M. LODHA &SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ.DATED: 9TH JANUARY, 2007.
P.C.:
This writ petition is of the year 1988 and has comeup for hearing after 18 years. The petitionerchallenges the order dated 25.6.1987 whereby he wasintimated that having failed to report for duty atCompany head-quarters at Lucknow, the Company concludedthat the petitioner was no more interested in theemployment of the Company and has voluntarily left theservices of the Company on his own accord. According tothe petitioner, this communication amounts totermination which is illegal for more than one reason.
2. Having seen the facts of the case and moreparticularly the fact that by the order dated 22.8.1986,the petitioner was transferred from Mumbai office toLucknow head-quarters and the petitioner did not reportfor duty at the transferred place and continued torequest for cancellation of transfer order and later onremained on leave on the purported ground of illness,prima facie it seems to us that even if, after hearingthe petition, it is held that the order dated 25.6.1987suffers from an illegality, the petitioner may not beentitled to any back wages. We accordingly asked thecounsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitionerat this distance of time is willing to join the serviceof the respondent. The counsel submitted that he wouldhave to seek instructions in this regard from thepetitioner.
3. We also wanted to know from the counsel for therespondent as to whether the respondent is willing toreinstate the petitioner without back wages. Thecounsel for the respondent also want time to seekinstructions in this regard.
4. In the circumstances, we adjourn the writ petitionto 16.1.2007.
5. We clarify that our observations are only tentativeand if the matter is heard on merits, these observationsshall have no bearing. We also clarify that, in themeanwhile, the parties may also explore the possibilityof mutual settlement.
(SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. )