Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 161 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing North East Karnataka Road Transport ... vs M.Nagangouda on 9 January, 2007

M/S Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt Ltd vs Sri Malakajappa S Dhari on 30 January, 2017

In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan - vs - S.C.Sharma reported in (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 363 and North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation - vs - M. Nagangouda reported in 2007(1) LLJ 1013, the question of payment of back wages or interim relief is not a mere empty formality and the issue whether the employee is 8 "gainfully employed" is the core issue and requires adjudication in terms of Section 11 of the Act.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - G Narendar - Full Document

Kumaragiri Textiles vs The Presiding Officer on 29 January, 2013

9. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforementioned decision, gainful employment would also include self-employment. Therefore, for such purpose, the petitioner management ought not to have been prevented from leading evidence and if the application filed by the petitioner had been allowed by the Labour Court fixing a specific time frame, the appeal could have been avoided and either party would have known the result. However, as a result of the impugned order, the matter is pending before this Court since 2003 and the second respondent has not been able to get any relief from the Labour Court.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

Sureshkumar Valjibhai Baraiya vs Divisional Controller & on 17 February, 2016

8. Without placing any evidence on record, the opponent - original petitioner has alleged that according to his information, the applicant is earning from agriculture activity and that he owns half acre land. Relying on the decision in case of North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. M. Nagangouda [(2007) 10 SCC 765], the opponent - original petitioner has sought to contend that the applicant should be considered in gainful employment when he is earning from agriculture activity.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - K M Thaker - Full Document

H T Media Limited vs State Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2022

3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. This Court, by judgment dated 02.09.2022 passed in W.A.No.1074/2021 after taking note of judgment of Supreme Court in NORTH-EAST ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. M.NAGANGOUDA supra and another judgment in RAJINDER KUMAR KINDRA Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION2, has held that self- employment cannot amount to an employment in an 2 AIR 1984 SC 1805 5 establishment and the person who is self-employed is entitled for the benefit of Section 17B of the Act.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Between The vs The on 26 April, 2022

pleaded that the workman was gainfully employed and he during his cross-examination admitted that he was not satisfied with the work of the management as assigned to him and for that reason he left the service of the Management. He also admitted that he is making his livelihood through agricultural income. 30 On this point, Ld. AR for managements has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in North East Karnataka Road Vs. M. Nagangouda in Appeal (civil) 129 of 2007 on 9 January, 2007, wherein it was held on the said question, we are unable to accept the reasoning of the Labour Court that the income received by the respondent from agricultural pursuits could not be equated with income from gainful employment in any establishment. In our view, "gainful employment" would also include self-employment wherefrom income is generated. Income either from employment in an establishment or from self- employment merely differentiates the sources from which income is generated, the end use being the same. Since the respondent was earning some amount from his agricultural pursuits to maintain himself, the Labour Court was not justified in holding that merely because the respondent was receiving agricultural income, he could not be treated to be engaged in "gainful employment".
Delhi District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next