Full Text
Translation output
.J. 1
{-t
6# o/o L2.O8.2OLL
Present: Mr.D.B.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners.
+W.P.(C) No.3252/2010
*
Counsel for the petitioner submits that he had inspected the trial court records and did not find filing of any demand notice by these petitioners.
Arguments of counsel for the petitioner heard at the preliminary stage.
Arguing the present petition, counsel for the petitioner submits that none of these petitioners had received payment as reflected in the various vouchers got signed by the respondent- employer. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that all these vouchers were got signed by the employer blank and the employer had latter affixed the revenue stamps.
The argument taken by the counsel for the petitioner does not find support from the documents placed on record at least in the case of some of the petitioners. ln the case of Ram Dular, clearly he had affixed his signatures on the revenue stamp and same is the case of Ram Man and Ram Raj and, therefore, the argument taken by counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.
U lr
2011:DHC:18000 i€'-t
.r-
6# o/o L2.O8.2OLL
Present: Mr.D.B.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners.
+W.P.(C) No.3252/2010
*
Counsel for the petitioner submits that he had inspected the trial court records and did not find filing of any demand notice by these petitioners.
Arguments of counsel for the petitioner heard at the preliminary stage.
Arguing the present petition, counsel for the petitioner submits that none of these petitioners had received payment as reflected in the various vouchers got signed by the respondent- employer. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that all these vouchers were got signed by the employer blank and the employer had latter affixed the revenue stamps.
The argument taken by the counsel for the petitioner does not find support from the documents placed on record at least in the case of some of the petitioners. ln the case of Ram Dular, clearly he had affixed his signatures on the revenue stamp and same is the case of Ram Man and Ram Raj and, therefore, the argument taken by counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.
U lr
2011:DHC:18000 i€'-t
.r-
:;^'
Probably in some of the vouchers, the employer might have affixed the revenue stamp later. In any case, the said late affixation of the revenue stamp would not invalidate the said vouchers and at least would not support the stand of the petitioners that they had signed the said vouchers blank. The detailed cross-examination of all these petitioners was conducted and all these petitioners clearly took a stand that no action was taken by them against the Management for signing the said vouchers blank.
I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award.
There is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
KATLASH GAMBH|R, J
AUGUST L2,?OLL dc
L
'i.l
2011:DHC:18000
Probably in some of the vouchers, the employer might have affixed the revenue stamp later. In any case, the said late affixation of the revenue stamp would not invalidate the said vouchers and at least would not support the stand of the petitioners that they had signed the said vouchers blank. The detailed cross-examination of all these petitioners was conducted and all these petitioners clearly took a stand that no action was taken by them against the Management for signing the said vouchers blank.
I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award.
There is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
KATLASH GAMBH|R, J
AUGUST L2,?OLL dc
L
'i.l
2011:DHC:18000
JUDGMENT