Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing Municipal Council, Sujanpur vs Surinder Kumar on 5 May, 2006

Id No.898/14 Mohan Kumar vs M/S Expectation Page No. 1 Out Of 11 on 20 January, 2015

In Municipal Council, Sujanpur Vs. Surinder Kumar 2006 LLR 662, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the relief of reinstatement is not automatic but is in the discretion of the court. In paragraph 16, it was observed as under :­ ID No.898/14 Mohan Kumar Vs M/s Expectation Page No. 6 out of 11 "Apart from the aforementioned error of law, in our considered opinion, the Labour Court and consequently the High Court completely misdirected themselves insofar as they failed to take into consideration that relief to be granted in terms of section 11A of the said Act being discretionary in nature, a Labour Court was required to consider the facts of each case therefor. Only because relief by way of reinstatement with full back wages would be lawful, it would not mean that the same would be granted automatically".
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Id No. 274/14 Lallan Jha vs Gannon Dunkerly & Co. Ltd. Page No. 1 Out ... on 10 March, 2015

In Municipal Council, Sujanpur Vs. Surinder ID No. 274/14 LALLAN JHA VS GANNON DUNKERLY & CO. LTD. Page No. 20 out of 24 Kumar 2006 LLR 662, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the relief of reinstatement is not automatic but is in the discretion of the court. In paragraph 16, it was observed as under :­ "Apart from the aforementioned error of law, in our considered opinion, the Labour Court and consequently the High Court completely misdirected themselves insofar as they failed to take into consideration that relief to be granted in terms of section 11A of the said Act being discretionary in nature, a Labour Court was required to consider the facts of each case therefor. Only because relief by way of reinstatement with full back wages would be lawful, it would not mean that the same would be granted automatically".
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vide Order No. F.24(271)/99­Lab. ... vs S.T. Hadimani on 3 September, 2015

In Municipal Council, Sujanpur Vs. Surinder Kumar 2006 LLR 662, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the relief of reinstatement is not automatic but is in the discretion of the court. In paragraph 16, it was observed as under :­ "Apart from the aforementioned error of law, in our considered opinion, the Labour Court and consequently the High Court completely misdirected themselves insofar as they failed to take into consideration that relief to be granted in terms of section 11A of the said Act being discretionary in nature, a Labour Court was required to consider the facts of each case therefor. Only because relief by way of reinstatement with full back wages would be lawful, it would not mean that the same would be granted automatically".
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vide Order No. ... vs Raj Singh on 5 October, 2015

In Municipal Council, Sujanpur Vs. Surinder Kumar 2006 LLR 662, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the relief of reinstatement is not automatic but is in the discretion of the court. In paragraph 16, it was observed as under :­ "Apart from the aforementioned error of law, in our considered opinion, the Labour Court and consequently the High Court completely misdirected themselves insofar as they failed to take into consideration that relief to be granted in terms of section 11A of the said Act being discretionary in nature, a Labour Court was required to consider the facts of each case therefor. Only because relief by way of reinstatement with full back wages would be lawful, it would not mean that the same would be granted automatically".
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vide Order No. F.24(1034)/2003/Lab ... vs Union on 17 December, 2015

In Municipal Council, Sujanpur Vs. Surinder Kumar 2006 LLR 662, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the relief of reinstatement is not automatic but is in the discretion of the court. In paragraph 16, it was observed as under :­ "Apart from the aforementioned error of law, in our considered opinion, the Labour Court and consequently the High Court completely misdirected themselves insofar as they failed to take into consideration that relief to be granted in terms of section 11A ID No.40/14/03 9/15 of the said Act being discretionary in nature, a Labour Court was required to consider the facts of each case therefor. Only because relief by way of reinstatement with full back wages would be lawful, it would not mean that the same would be granted automatically".
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Abhishek Kumar S/O. Sh. Bihari Singh vs Changed To:­ M/S. Bala Ji Offset on 16 January, 2015

IC 202; (vii) N. C. John Vs. Secretary 1973 Lab IC 398; (viii) Soni Photostat Centre Vs. Basudev Gupta & Another 2004 LLR 546; (ix) Ravi N. Tikoo & Deputy Commissioner & Ors. 2006 LLR 496 (Delhi); (x) Pratima Seth Vs. Management of M/s. Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. 2007 III AD (Delhi) 314; (xi) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. S. C. Sharma 2005 LLR 275 (SC); (xii) Municipal Council, Sujanpur Vs. Surinder Kumar 2006 (3) L. L. N. 806 (SC); (xiii) S. B. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath AIR 1994 (SC) 853 and (xiv) M/s. Purafil Engineers Vs. Shaikh Anwar Abdul Rahman 2000 LLR 268. Material available on judicial file perused carefully. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case as they arise on the basis of material available on judicial file. The case laws perused with utmost regards with a query in mind as to the applicability of the case laws in the facts and circumstances of this case.
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Radha vs The Commissioner on 5 March, 2015

In Municipal Council, Sujanpur Vs. Surinder Kumar 2006 LLR 662, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the relief of reinstatement is not automatic but is in the discretion of the court. In paragraph 16, it was observed as under :­ "Apart from the aforementioned error of law, in our considered opinion, the Labour Court and consequently the High Court completely misdirected themselves insofar as they failed to take into consideration that relief to be granted in terms of section 11A of the said Act being discretionary in nature, a Labour Court was required to consider the facts of each case therefor. Only because relief by way of reinstatement with full back wages would be lawful, it would not mean that the same would be granted automatically".
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jatashankar S/O. Sh. Ramai Ram vs M/S. Kenmore Vikas (India) Private ... on 30 April, 2015

Ld. counsel for management has filed written submissions and relied upon case laws reported as (i) Angile Insulations Vs. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. and Another (1995) 4 Supreme Court Cases 153; (ii) Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Universal Petrol Chemical Limited (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 107; (iii) National Textile Corpn. Ltd. and others Vs. M/s. Haribox Swalram and others AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1998; (iv) International Airport Authority of India Vs. International Air Cargo Workers' Union & Anr. 2009 LLR 923; (v) Air India Limited Vs. Jagesh Dutt Sharma & Ors. 2007 LLR 23; (vi) General Manager (OSD), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills, Rajnandgaon Vs. Bharat Lal & Anr. 2011 LLR 113; (vii) Chander Sain and others Vs. J. B. Garments 2009 (122) FLR 359; (viii) Ram Singh and others Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others 2003 (99) FLR 1064; (ix) Anand Sawrup Data Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. 1997 (2) Civil Court Cases 44 (P&H); (x) Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court­Cum­Industrial Tribunal, Hisar & Ors. 2010 LLR 704; (xi) New Delhi General Mazdoor Union & Others Vs. Standing Conference of Public Enterprises and another 1991 LLR 516; (xii) Charan Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal - Cum - Labour Court - II, Gurgaon and Another 2014 LLR 747; (xiii) Chander Sain and others Vs. J. B. Garments 2009 (122) FLR 359; (xiv) Sunil B. Waghela Vs. M/s. Juhu Vile Parle Gymkhana Club and others 2002 LLR 1206; (xv) Bombay Hospital Trust and another Vs. Dr. Shailesh Hathi and another 2006 LLR 992; (xvi) Ravindra Baburao Ambolkar Vs. Gujarat Tea Canteen and another 1996 LLR 40; (xvii) Florence Joel Vs. Mater Dei School 2005 (3) SLR 643; (xviii) Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu & others 1992 (64) FLR 755 (xix) Nazir Ahmed Vs. A. Ramachandran and another 2000 Page No. 10 of 23 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) POLC XI/KKD/DELHI/30.04.2015 Jatashankar Vs. M/s. Kenmore Vikas (India) Private Limited ID No. 351/10 (4) L. L. N. 948; (xx) Mahindra and Mahindra Vs. The Presiding Officer and another 2012 SCT (4) 345; (xxi) North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. M. Nagangouda 2007 (1) L. L. N. 582; (xxii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan and Anr. Vs. S. C. Sharma 2005 LLR 275 and (xxiii) Municipal Council, Sujanpur Vs. Surinder Kumar 2006 (3) L. L. N. 806.
Delhi District Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vide Order No. ... vs S.T. Hadimani on 4 August, 2015

In Municipal Council, Sujanpur Vs. Surinder Kumar ID No.117/10/97. 13/19 2006 LLR 662, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the relief of reinstatement is not automatic but is in the discretion of the court. In paragraph 16, it was observed as under :­ "Apart from the aforementioned error of law, in our considered opinion, the Labour Court and consequently the High Court completely misdirected themselves insofar as they failed to take into consideration that relief to be granted in terms of section 11A of the said Act being discretionary in nature, a Labour Court was required to consider the facts of each case therefor. Only because relief by way of reinstatement with full back wages would be lawful, it would not mean that the same would be granted automatically".
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Jai Parkash vs M/S. Bses Rajdhani Power Limited on 6 October, 2015

In Municipal Council, Sujanpur Vs. Surinder Kumar 2006 LLR 662, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the relief of reinstatement is not automatic but is in the discretion of the court. In paragraph 16, it was observed as under :­ "Apart from the aforementioned error of law, in our considered opinion, the Labour Court and consequently the High Court completely misdirected themselves insofar as they failed to take into consideration that relief to be granted in terms of section 11A of the said Act being discretionary in nature, a Labour Court was required to consider the facts of each case therefor.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next