Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing Surendra Kumar Verma Etc vs The Central Government Industrial ... on 23 September, 1980

M/S Lml Limited vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 25 January, 2022

In the present case, the petitioner-company is under liquidation by the order of the NCLT as the Resolution Plan was rejected by the Committee of Creditors. The assets of the petitioner-company are being liquidated. It is not that the petitioner-company is continuing with its business or production, and that in that eventuality it would place an impossible burden on the employer if it is saddled with the liability of payment of back wages, etc. Under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner-company being under liquidation, the plea for remission of the back wages for reason of 'impossible burden on the employer' cannot be acceded to. It is for the Liquidator to assess the claims of the workmen also taking into account the impugned award of the Industrial Tribunal. Thereafter the proceeds from the sale of the liquidated assets can be distributed in accordance with the Code. Therefore, the judgement of Surendra Kumar Verma (supra) is distinguishable.
Allahabad High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 2 - J Banerji - Full Document

M/S Beml Limited vs Appellate Authority Under Payment Of ... on 29 June, 2022

Thereafter, HAL had sent a letter dated:07.11.2012 to the Petitioner informing that the third respondent had joined their services with effect from 28.09.2012 and enclosed the request of the third respondent vide his letter 4 dated:16.10.2012 to HAL to seek for transfer of gratuity from the petitioner to HAL. The Petitioner replied to the said request vide letter dated 24.07.2013 informing HAL that since the third respondent had not put in minimum service of 5 years as required under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, he was not eligible to claim gratuity and thus it is unable to accede to the request. The third respondent had also submitted a letter dated:26.06.2013 to the petitioner claiming gratuity by quoting the Apex Court Judgment in the case of SURENDRA KUMAR VERMA VS. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL. This was followed by yet another letter dated:16.08.2013 wherein the third respondent was reiterating his claim for gratuity. The petitioner replied vide letter dated:30.08.2013, communicating to HAL that request on behalf of the third respondent for transferring the gratuity cannot be acceded to since the third respondent is not eligible to claim gratuity since he has not served the minimum eligibility period of five years.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - J Mulimani - Full Document

X vs State Of Nct Of Delhi (Acting Through Its ... on 20 October, 2022

In one of the cases cite d before us, that is, Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industri al Tribunal-cum-Labour Court [(1980) 4 SCC 443 : 1981 SCC (L&S ) 16] we had occasion to say : (SCC p. 447, para 6) ―6. ... Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of ‗brea d and butter' statutes. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a b road interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief agai nst certain kinds of mischief, the court is not to make inroads by mak ing etymological excursions.‖ '
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next