9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re terminated by the company on August, 1997, and for which, the petitioner workman had moved the Labour Court challenging the said action which is pending. 2. During the hearing, when the matter was called out today, on behalf of the applicant, without prejudice, a proposal submitted by the applicant through the advocate to the solicitor of the respondent-company for settlement incorporating certain conditions by his letter dated 9-7-1999, and the solicitor after consulting his clients, has communicated the reply to the said proposal vide their letter dated 12-7-1999, indicating that the proposal is not acceptable. Hence, as the proposal of the applicant was not acceptable, there is no possibility of settlement. 3. The petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amodar Das Jain v. Krishna Charan Chakraborti [1990] 67 Comp. Cas. 564 (SC) and judgment in the matter of Smt. Abhilash Vinod Kumar Jain v. Cox King s (India) Ltd. [1995] 84 Comp. Cas. 28 * (SC). On behalf of the respondent, reliance is placed on the decision in the matter of Atul Mathur v. Atul Kalra [1990] 68 Comp. Cas. 324 (SC). 5. On considering the submission and on going through the judgment under challenge, it is to be noted that the complaint was filed by the respondent against the present petitioner-accused for the offence under section 630 giving details of the alleged offence and the said complaint was registered before the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate F.C., Thane, being Criminal Case No. 4609 of 1996. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amjoshi retired from the company on or about October, 1996 and he requested the company for return of the said flat. He has also produced the said letter dated 30-8-1965. It further transpired from the evidence of Shri Karnik about giving loan in favour of the accused in November, 1996, for construction of house on his plot at Koparkhairne and the company has given loan of Rs. 31,000 from the provident fund account of the accused. The witness has also stated that the accused was dismissed from service from 31-8-1997, and the termi-nation letter is also produced on record at exhibit 26 dated 1-9-1997. In the cross-examination, the defence has suggested that the flat in question is not of the company as even as per the evidence in chief, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sessions Judge and on consi-dering the findings recorded by the trial court, on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence and on considering the submission, in the light of the decisions cited before him, and on considering the provisions of the Act, the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal by recording the findings that the accused has withheld the flat wrongfully and illegally and thereby was guilty of the offence under section 630 and even observed that no illegality is found in the judgment and order of the trial court and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal. It is this judgment of the Appellate Court that is challenged by the accused in this revision application. 6. I was taken through the documents on the record, viz., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
