Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing Gujarat Water Supply And Sewerage Board ... vs Ketanbhai Dinkarray Pandya on 9 May, 2000

Chief Manager vs Purnima A Andharia Wd/O Deceased ... on 16 July, 2021

In the case of Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra), the factual matrix of the Letters Patent Appeals is that 43 workmen working on different posts like Diesel Operator, Electrical Operator, Attendant, Chowkidar working with the Sewerage Board straightway approached the Labour Court, Amreli in 1995 for recovery of overtime wages from the Page 25 of 40 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 18 00:16:41 IST 2021 C/SCA/4696/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021 Sewerage Board by way of separate recovery applications which came to be allowed by the Labour Court and affirmed by the learned Single Judge. Considering the fact that there was no right accrued in favour of the workman, after referring to the various decisions, ultimately, the Division Bench of this Court has allowed the appeals and quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the award passed by the Labour Court.
Gujarat High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - A P Thaker - Full Document

Chief Manager vs Purnima A Andharia Wd/O Deceased ... on 16 July, 2021

In the case of Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra), the factual matrix of the Letters Patent Appeals is that 43 workmen working on different posts like Diesel Operator, Electrical Operator, Attendant, Chowkidar working with the Sewerage Board straightway approached the Labour Court, Amreli in 1995 for recovery of overtime wages from the Page 25 of 40 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 00:32:14 IST 2022 C/SCA/4696/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021 Sewerage Board by way of separate recovery applications which came to be allowed by the Labour Court and affirmed by the learned Single Judge. Considering the fact that there was no right accrued in favour of the workman, after referring to the various decisions, ultimately, the Division Bench of this Court has allowed the appeals and quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the award passed by the Labour Court.
Gujarat High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - A P Thaker - Full Document

Employees State Insurance Scheme vs Damjibhai Chakubhai Patel on 28 January, 2005

8.1 In view of the same, and in view of the judgment, which we have cited, particularly judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of Lokmat Newspapers (Supra), Kanhaiyalal Agrawal (Supra), Sharada Devi (Supra), judgments of this Court in the cases of Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Supra) and Iswarlal (Supra), it is true that the learned Single Judge while examining the judgment of the tribunal, has exercised the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, when learned Single Judge also examining order of the Division Bench as well as order of Hon'ble Supreme Court and then reduced back wages from 100% to 40% has adjudicate the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So the present Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State is maintainable.
Gujarat High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 2 - D K Trivedi - Full Document

Gujarat Water Resources Development ... vs Gujarat Jal Samatti Vikas Nigam Kamdar ... on 15 April, 2005

11.13 The learned advocate has further relied upon the judgment in the case of Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. K.D. Pandya reported in (2001) 8 SCR 301 where the Hon'ble Court has held that the paying capacity of the employer is not relevant consideration, therefore the case put forth by the Corporation is devoid of any merits. He further submitted that the judgments cited by the learned advocate for the petitioner has no relevance in this behalf. That case was regarding revision of pay scale whereas in the instant case there is no revision of pay scale and therefore the said judgment has no application at all. It was further submitted that the Corporation is totally controlled and owned by the State Government and the Corporation has demanded money for payment of overtime to the employees. Therefore the Corporation can demand the amount for payment for wages to the employees as per the award of the tribunal, therefore the Corporation has paying capacity as it is one of the subsidiaries of the State Government.
Gujarat High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

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
1   2 Next