Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: llr in M/S Oin Exchange (India) Ltd. vs Satveer Kaushik And Ors. on 31 January, 2024Matching Fragments
1. Kriloskar Mahale System Ltd. Pune vs Chander Kant Tuka Ram Ubhe & Ors.
2. APSRTO & Ors. Vs. g. Siri Niwas Reddy & Ors. LLR 2006 page 433.
3. M/s chand Chhap fertilizer and Chemical Ltd; Kanpur Vs. Labour Commissioner, U.P. Kanpur & Ors. LLR 2006 page 724.
4. Haldia Refinery Canteen employees Union Vs Indian Oil corporation Ltd LLR 2005 SC 529.Signature Not Verified
5. Sunil b Wagheia Vs Zuhoo Villa Zimkhana club & Ors. LLR. 2002 Bombay 1205.
6. Pramod Kumar Samal & Ors. VS National Eluminum co. Ltd. LLR 2002 Orrisa 318.
7. FCI & Ors. Vs Presiding Officer CGIT from labour Court-1 chandhi Garh Ors. LLR 2008 Punjab & Haryana 391.
8. Deena Nath & Ors. Vs. National Fertilizer Ltd. LLR 1992 Supreme court 46
9. New Delhi Mazdoor Union, Delhi Office & Establishment employees Union Vs standing conference of Public Enterprises (Scope) & Ors. Delhi Lawyer 1991(1)(2) 189 DB Delhi.
10. UCO Bank Vs. Presiding Officer & Ors. AD-V 1999 Delhi 514.
11. Suresh Chand Mathur vs Harish chand Mathur AD-IX 2010 Delhi
546. 12. Krishna Bhagya Gal Nigam Ltd. Vs Mohd. Raffi LLR 2006 Delhi 496.
13. Ravi N tikku Vs Depty commissioner SW & Ors. LLR 2006 Delhi
14. Auto Mobile Associations of Upper India Vs Preliminary objections Labour Court - 2 & ors. LLR 2006 Delhi 851.
15. Extract of sec. 23 and 25 of contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970 is also relied upon."
27. Upon perusal of the above, it is made out that both the parties i.e. the petitioner entity and the respondent workmen had placed necessary facts and evidences on record to supplement their respective claims. The aforesaid paragraphs also shows that the learned Labour Court pointed out that the respondent workmen were not provided basic amenities such as holidays, overtime, bonus, HRS, PA. Provident Fund, gratuity despite deductions for the same from their salaries.