CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2008 › Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority v. Brij Raj Maurya

Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority v. Brij Raj Maurya

Supreme Court of India · 19 February 2008

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
19 February 2008
Case no.
C.A. No. 1478 of 2008
Length
1 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

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.

Ask CaseMinister about Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority v. Brij Raj Maurya

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp