The Management Of Bhel vs Sri H N Chikkaiah on 10 February, 2009

  a11§V'iSV--.:-91:1. Wages
fat)!' said pmiod is paid, however, the resyoildent is not enijifigd for
Wages upto the date sf 293.1996, as the Big:

force tin that date.

5. S1"i.Subramanya, learmcd 
workman filed statement of objéfifiiéxg   fijfadzzcfid  L'
amendment t9 the staudgag   e; %;€:I1 (llamas
3719} of {ha Staniiing    payment of wages
tiurirzg the SuSp8I}SiQ}1  oh  of acquittal in
cximinal casaf  §1':j§itted that, even in
mo-dei pfgasvésion for denial of wages

during the s11s_pié1i.::§iQ5:1"§}exé;§§.,___ . '

6, If t}ir:.._4eVt::.piVVt$3,rc§€';:1?ga¢':i;§1$t whom thrs criminal proceedings

35  'eij1p1oyee, he should not be Eififiifid of the

deny the legitixnate claim cf the respondent. ; gigs;