Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Case No. 18(3) of 1976, decided on 7th May 1976.
‑‑ Ss. 6(2) Sc 7‑Scope‑‑Jurisdiction of Authority‑Enforcement of directions of Authority‑Not within its jurisdiction‑Magistrate first class only empowered to try offence of violation of directions of Authority.
M. L. Shahani for Petitioners.
Ghulam Hassan for Respondent.
The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been denied additional increment of Rs. 31, which is in violation of the terms of settlement dated 9th September 1974, gazetted in the official Gazette, dated 2nd May 1975. Earlier directions under section 6 of the Essential Services Act had been issued by the learned Chairman, in terms of the said settlement.
2. The respondents have taken up a preliminary objection that the Essential Services Act does not empower the Authority appointed under section 6 thereof to enforce the direction issued by it. Mr. Ghulam Hassan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has argued that the power of the said Authority extends only to the extent of regulating the wages and other conditions of service of the employees and no further. According to him, in case any directions issued by the Authority under the said Act are violated there is no provision therein empowering the Authority to enforce them. Mr. Ghulam Hassan has referred to sub section (2) of section 6 which only lays down that violation of such direction is an offence, but only Magistrate First Class is empowered under section 7 to try such an offence. I fully agree with the contention raised by Mr. Ghulam Hassan and dismiss the petition, it being not maintainable. I
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer