https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273418 The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the petitioner, as an apprentice, does not qualify as a workman under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The court found discrepancies in the petitioner's date of birth documents and emphasized the need for compliance with the Certified Standing Order to establish the correct date of birth. It was held that principles of natural justice do not apply in cases involving fraud, and the petitioner must meet statutory requirements. The appeal was dismissed without costs, with a directive for the respondent to act as a model employer if no statutory impediment exists. en-us Wed, 21 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Apr 2023 13:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273418 The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the petitioner, as an apprentice, does not qualify as a workman under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The court found discrepancies in the petitioner's date of birth documents and emphasized the need for compliance with the Certified Standing Order to establish the correct date of birth. It was held that principles of natural justice do not apply in cases involving fraud, and the petitioner must meet statutory requirements. The appeal was dismissed without costs, with a directive for the respondent to act as a model employer if no statutory impediment exists. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 21 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273418