Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 40 (2.84 seconds)
Documents citing Surendra Kumar Verma Etc vs The Central Government Industrial ... on 23 September, 1980

Moti Ceramic Industries vs Jivuben Rupabhai on 29 October, 1999

In one of the cases cited before us, that is, Surendra Kumar v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, we had occasion to say, "Semantic luxurious are misplaced in the interpretation of 'bread and butter' statutes. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions."
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 25 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Nileshbhai Babubhai Lakkad vs Deputy Executive Engineer on 26 July, 2021

In S.K. Verma v. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 422, speaking for three Judges Bench, O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. while considering the original provisions of Section 25B and the amendment brought about by Act 36 of 1964 of Section 25B of the Act, has said that Section 25F requires that a workman should be in a continuous service for not less than one year under an employer before that provision applies. While so, present, S.25-B(2) steps in and says that even if a workman has not been in continuous service under an employer for a period of one year, he shall be deemed to have been in such continuous service for a period of one year, if he has actually worked under the employer for 240 days in the preceding period of twelve months.
Gujarat High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - R M Chhaya - Full Document

Solanki Rameshbhai Virabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 20 December, 2000

8. In Special Civil Application No. 4578 of 1990, the order of termination of services of the petitioners is filed. In two other cases, the petitioners have not filed the order of termination of their services. Even in the special civil applications it is not stated on which date these orders have been passed. It is no more res Integra that unless a copy of the order impugned and prayer is made for quashing and setting aside thereof, is tiled, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Reference in this respect may have to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Surendra Singh v. Central Government & Ors., reported in 1986 (4) SCC 667 : AIR 1986 SC 2166. In these two special civil applications, prayer has been made that the action of the respondents to terminate the services of the petitioner be declared erroneous and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. Though artistically prayer has been made but in substance, prayer is for quashing and setting aside of the order of termination. It is a different matter that this Court has protected the petitioners but otherwise, unless a copy of the orders are filed, these petitions were not maintainable nor any relief could have been granted. Be that as it may, as the respondents have admitted that the services of the petitioners in these two special civil applications have not been terminated, I am not dismissing these petitions on this ground and considering the matter on merits.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S K Keshote - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Dipak Kumar Madhusudanbhai Gandhi on 25 April, 2008

III. The approach to be borne in mind while interpreting the welfare legislation is illustrated in Surendra Kumar Verma's case where the Supreme Court observed that semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of 'bread and butter' statutes. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions.
Gujarat High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 2 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Dalsukhbhai Keshavlal vs National Institute Of Design on 7 July, 2000

In one of the cases cited before us, that is, Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, we had occasion to say 'Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of 'bread and butter' statutes.' Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mis-chief, the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions.
Gujarat High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Deputy vs Vajesinh on 12 September, 2011

"13. An analysis of the above reproduced provisions shows that no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer can be retrenched by that employer until the conditions enumerated in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25-F of the Act are satisfied. In terms of Clause (a), the employer is required to give to the workman one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or pay him wages in lieu of the notice. Clause (b) casts a duty upon the employer to pay to the workman at the time of retrenchment, compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months. This Court has repeatedly held that Section 25-F(a) and (b) of the Act is mandatory and non-compliance thereof renders the retrenchment of an employee nullity - State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha AIR 1960 SC 610, Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay (1964) 6 SCR 22, State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money (1976) 1 SCC 822, Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala (1980) 3 SCC 340, Mohan Lal v. Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd. (1981) 3 SCC 225, L. Robert D'Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway (1982) 1 SCC 645, Surendra Kumar Verma v. Industrial Tribunal (1980) 4 SCC 443, Gammon India Ltd. v. Niranjan Das (1984) 1 SCC 509, Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab (1991) 1 SCC 189 and Pramod Jha v. State of Bihar (2003) 4 SCC 619.
Gujarat High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Chief vs Suresh on 26 March, 2010

III. The approach to be borne in mind while interpreting the welfare legislation is illustrated in Surendra Kumar Verma's case where the Supreme Court observed that semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of 'bread and butter' statutes. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions.
Gujarat High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Medical vs Dashrathsinh on 10 May, 2011

In one of the cases cited before us, that is, Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, we had occasion to say, "Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of 'bread and butter' statutes. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions."
Gujarat High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Krishnonics Capacity & vs Manjulaben Ambalal Solanki & 8 on 16 December, 2016

In rejecting the claim of the workmen, we are   supported   by   the   following   observations   of   the   Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Verma   Vs. The Central Government Indsutrail Tribunal­cum­ Labour   Court,   New   Delhi   and   Another   reported   in   1981 SC 422.  The relevant portion reads as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - A J Shastri - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next