AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs BRIJ RAJ MAURYA

19 February 2008
Supreme Court
Download

AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs BRIJ RAJ MAURYA

Case number: C.A. No.-001478-001478 / 2008
Diary number: 12495 / 2007
Advocates: K. K. MOHAN Vs JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA

Page 1
1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1478 of 2008

PETITIONER: AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

RESPONDENT: BRIJ RAJ MAURYA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/02/2008

BENCH: TARUN CHATTERJEE & HARJIT SINGH BEDI

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O  R  D  E  R

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1478 OF 2008  (Arising out of SLP(C)No.9748 of 2007)                                                              WITH                                     CIVIL APPEAL NO.1479 OF 2008                               (Arising out of SLP(C)No.9749 of 2007)                                      CIVIL APPEAL NO.1480 OF 2008                               (Arising out of SLP(C)No.9751 of 2007)                                                          CIVIL APPEAL NO.1481 OF 2008                               (Arising out of SLP(C)No.9752 of 2007)                                     CIVIL APPEAL NO.1482 OF 2008                               (Arising out of SLP(C)No.9754 of 2007)                                     CIVIL APPEAL NO.1483 OF 2008                               (Arising out of SLP(C)No.9755 of 2007)                                         CIVIL APPEAL NO.1484 OF 2008                               (Arising out of SLP(C)No.9757 of 2007)                                         CIVIL APPEAL NO.1485 OF 2008                               (Arising out of SLP(C)No.9759 of 2007)                                              CIVIL APPEAL NO.1486 OF 2008                               (Arising out of SLP(C)No.9761 of 2007)                      

       Leave granted.         We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court of   Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow by which the award passed by the Labour  Court was affirmed with 25% of  back  wages.  Considering  the  facts  and circumstances of  these  

cases, we are of the view that 25% of back wages shall not be allowed to be paid to the  respondent. We order accordingly.  With this modification, the order of the High Court is  affirmed.  The appeals are accordingly disposed of.  There shall be no order as to costs.