THE MANAGEMENT B.H.E.L. . vs B.H.E.L.EX-APPRENTICE ASSN.TRICHY — C.A. No. 10815 - 10816/2013

Case under Section XII-B. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010179582009

Filing Date

22-Jun-2009

Registration No

C.A. No. 10815 - 10816/2013

Diary Number

17958/2009

Order Date

03-Dec-2013

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 05-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section XII-B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE MANAGEMENT B.H.E.L. .

    Adv. KAMLENDRA MISHRA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.B.H.E.L.EX-APPRENTICE ASSN.TRICHY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 03-Dec-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 12-Nov-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 29-Oct-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 30-Apr-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 12-Apr-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 21-Mar-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 08-Jul-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 13-Apr-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 28-Feb-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 14-Jan-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 11-Nov-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 28-Oct-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 23-Sep-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 10-Aug-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 13-May-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 25-Mar-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 15-Mar-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 11-Jan-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 10-Aug-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  21. 22-Jun-2009

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 10815 - 10816/2013

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C.A. No. 010815-010816/2013 Outcome: The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by mutual agreement between BHEL Management and the Ex-Apprentice Association. BHEL agreed to absorb 124 ex-apprentices who were below 40 years of age as of November 5, 2007, subject to identity verification and fitness assessment. The absorption was to be completed by April 30, 2014. The order clarified it would not serve as precedent for other cases. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case