Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing The Management Of Southern Roadways ... vs D. Venkateswarlu Etc. on 29 September, 1969

Delhi Transport Corporation vs D.D. Gupta And Anr. on 17 May, 1977

20. I may mention that this very question has been very elaborately dealt with in the judgment delivered by Ismail, J, of the Madras High Court in Southern Roadways (Private) Ltd. v. D. Venkateswarlu and Anr. (1970) 37 F.J.R. 317, which has been affirmed by a Division Bench of the same Court in another case quoted earlier by me in the present judgment. In this case, Ismail. J., has also taken the same view as I have reached, namely, that both the remedies are available to a workman.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

General Manager, Co-Operative Super ... vs Additional Labour Court And Anr. on 11 February, 1976

Section 25 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, which states that the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, will apply to wages payable to motor transport workers, does not bar the jurisdiction of a Labour Court to deal with a claim under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, either on the ground that the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, have been incorporated in the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, by Section 25 being the procedure prescribed in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, that procedure will constitute a special provision as contrasted with the provisions of Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which will constitute a general provision, and, therefore, the special procedure laid down in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, will exclude the provisions of Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Moreover, there is do express provision in the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, which excludes the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to deal with a claim of a motor transport worker under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - S Mohan - Full Document

Ananda Transport vs M. Chelliah And Ors. on 11 February, 1974

9. In our Court, Ismail, J., in Southern Roadways (P.) Ltd. v. Venkateswarlu. (1969) 37 F.J.R. 316, has said that the Court is primarily guided by the provision of the statute itself in deciding whether the particular remedy indicated by the statute is the exclusive remedy available to an aggrieved party or it is only an alternative or an additional remedy. While dealing with the provisions relating to Section 10(1) and Section 10(2) of the Motor Transport Workers' Act, the learned Judge said that these two items of claims cannot; possibly come under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. He posed the question for himself (at p. 343):
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1