Search Results Page

Search Results

21 - 30 of 32 (0.67 seconds)
Documents citing Gujarat Water Supply And Sewerage Board ... vs Ketanbhai Dinkarray Pandya on 9 May, 2000

Dhirendra Pritamlal Parekh vs The President, Bhavnagar District ... on 3 March, 2022

"8. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court committed an error in ordering recovery of the alleged short payment of minimum wages without there being full adjudication by the competent authority or the Court. This is not to suggest that if in a given case, the employer simply does not put in defence to the claim of a workman of unpaid monetary benefits, even then prior adjudication under the industrial dispute or under some other Labour Legislation would be a pre-condition to entertain the recovery application under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Such case however, may be different in nature and may require different scrutiny and approach. The present case certainly falls within the parameters of the decision of Division Bench in case of Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board and anr. v. Ketanbhai Dinkarray Pandya(supra)."
Gujarat High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

The President, Bhavnagar District ... vs Dhirendra Pritamlal Parekh on 5 May, 2023

4.5 To support his contention, learned advocate has Page 6 of 12 Downloaded on : Sat May 06 20:45:38 IST 2023 C/LPA/1234/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023 relied on the following decisions -(i) Junagadh Municipal Corporation v. Benkunwarben Tapubhai Vaghela decided by this Court in Special Civil Application No.4796 of 2004 decided on 28th July, 2014; (ii) Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda v. Gitaben Haribhai Darji reported in MANU/GJ/0220/2005 and (iii) Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ketanbhai Dinkarray Pandya reported in MANU/GJ/0109/2003.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N V Anjaria - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Devabhai Tapubhai on 13 August, 2004

3.7. Mr. Gohil next relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Ketanbhai Dinkarray Panday, reported in 2003 (3) G.L.R. p.2281. In that decision, this Court held that recovery application to the Labour Court claiming overtime without the same being adjudicated by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, is not directly maintainable under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Labour Court was set aside.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - K Jhaveri - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Bachubhai Govabhai on 21 July, 2004

3.6. Mr. Raval next relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Ketanbhai Dinkarray Panday, reported in 2003 (3) G.L.R. p.2281. In that decision, this Court held that recovery application to the Labour Court claiming overtime without the same being adjudicated by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, is not directly maintainable under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Labour Court was set aside.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - K Jhaveri - Full Document

Secretary vs Merabhai on 19 July, 2010

3.6. Mr. Raval next relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Ketanbhai Dinkarray Panday, reported in 2003 (3) G.L.R. p.2281. In that decision, this Court held that recovery application to the Labour Court claiming overtime without the same being adjudicated by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, is not directly maintainable under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Labour Court was set aside.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - K Jhaveri - Full Document

State vs Himatlal on 26 July, 2010

3.6. Mr. Raval next relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Ketanbhai Dinkarray Panday, reported in 2003 (3) G.L.R. p.2281. In that decision, this Court held that recovery application to the Labour Court claiming overtime without the same being adjudicated by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, is not directly maintainable under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Labour Court was set aside.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - K Jhaveri - Full Document

Secretary vs Narshibhai on 22 October, 2010

3.6. Mr. Raval next relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Ketanbhai Dinkarray Panday, reported in 2003 (3) G.L.R. p.2281. In that decision, this Court held that recovery application to the Labour Court claiming overtime without the same being adjudicated by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, is not directly maintainable under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Labour Court was set aside.
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - M R Shah - Full Document

Worker Filed An Application U/S 33 C (2) ... vs Ganesh Razak And Another on 14 January, 2008

In case of Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Anr. vs. Ketanbhai Dinkaray Pandya, Amroll, 2003 LLR 1118, fourty three workers claimed overtime wages in application under section 33(C)(2) of the Act. Labour Court passed an order allowing overtime wages. Ld Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the management. In LPA Hon'ble Division Bench accepted the appeal and made the following observation :
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
Previous   1 2 3   4 Next