KHADHI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION vs SAROJINI DEVI . — C.A. No. 6443/2014

Case under Section III-A. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010060072006

Filing Date

03-Mar-2006

Registration No

C.A. No. 6443/2014

Diary Number

6007/2006

Order Date

08-Jul-2014

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Allowed

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Section III-A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KHADHI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION

    Adv. MITTER & MITTER CO.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SAROJINI DEVI .

    Adv. DINESH KUMAR GARG

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Jul-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 09-Sep-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 19-Jul-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 15-Feb-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 06-May-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 09-Sep-2009
  8. 29-Jul-2009
  9. 16-Apr-2009
  10. 24-Mar-2009
  11. 19-Feb-2009
  12. 11-Feb-2009
  13. 03-Feb-2009
  14. 12-Dec-2008
  15. 26-Jun-2008
  16. 29-Apr-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 25-Feb-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 11-Feb-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 23-Jan-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 12-Dec-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  21. 21-Sep-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  22. 10-Jul-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  23. 07-May-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  24. 09-May-2006
  25. 08-May-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  26. 03-Mar-2006

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 6443/2014

  27. 12-Dec-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of C.A. No. 006443/2014 The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by Khadhi & Village Industries Commission against Sarojini Devi and others. The court set aside the High Court's judgment and the Industrial Tribunal's award that had directed reinstatement of daily wage workers terminated on 23rd May 1990 following an office fire. The court found the Tribunal failed to establish that workers had completed the mandated one year continuous service or 240 working days required under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before retrenchment, and had not addressed the workers' significant delay in filing claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case