Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 270 (1.25 seconds)
Documents citing O.P. Bhandari vs Indian Tourism Development ... on 26 September, 1986

Jayant Dhirajlal Kachalia vs Dowells Electro Works And Anr. on 11 January, 2007

Taking into consideration the wages which were drawn by the appellant and applying the criteria of O.P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (supra) as well as in Workmen v. Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd. (supra), in our considered opinion, the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- awarded in lieu of reinstatement to the appellant cannot be said to be either unreasonable or unjust. In fact, in the circumstances of the case it is quite reasonable and just compensation awarded to the appellant in lieu of reinstatement.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document

V. Sadasivan And 36 Others vs Binny Limited Represented By Its ... on 2 December, 1997

The decision of the Supreme Court of India reported in Water Transport Corporation Ltd., v. Broo Nath, ; O.P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourish Development Corporation Ltd., and Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, have declared the position of law beyond doubt that a Rule or Clause in the contract or Agreement of Service which entitles the Management to terminate the services of an employee by merely giving one calendar month's notice or one month's salary in lieu of such notice would be ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that such provision would also be opposed to public policy and violative of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. The petitioners, even if relegated to the relief of suit or the Industrial Dispute in the labour court, as it may deem fit, there could be no difficulty for those forums to strike down such a rule or declare such a clause to be void and unenforceable and it may not involve or necessitate any serious exercise or effort or any detailed enquiry to strike down such a rule or declare void such a clause, even in an agreement of service. The determination of the validity of such a clause as noticed above does not involve any factual investigation or appreciation of evidence and adjudication of factual issues. Consequently, instead of driving the petitioners to the appropriate forum, having regard to the fact that the writ petition has been filed and has been pending, on being entertained on the file of this Court so long we consider it appropriate, in the interests of justice to declare clause 8 of the Agreement of Service, extracted above to be void and unenforceable against the petitioners as being violative of Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, applying the law declared by the Apex Court in the cases noticed supra. Consequently, the orders of termination in these cases are also declared illegal and non est, having no legs to stand in the absence of the provision contained in clause 8 above, which has been declared void.
Madras High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 7 - D Raju - Full Document

On-Dot Couriers & Cargo Ltd. vs Anand Singh Rawat on 26 October, 2009

In the said judgment, after referring to another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of O.P.Bhandari vs. India Tourism Development Corporation Limited reported in (1986) 4 SCC 337, certain broad parameters have been laid down for computation and payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. On examining the said judgment we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also taken into consideration interest payable on the compensation which was made payable from the date of the Order passed by the appellate Court. We, therefore, following the said judgment feel that in the present case equity and justice demands that the respondent No.2 should pay interest on Rs.50,000/- at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the award i.e. 1.12.1994 till the sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the appellants. The respondent W.P. (C ) No. 4197/2008 Page 18 of 24 Corporation is therefore directed to compute the said interest from the date of the award i.e. 1.12.1994 till the date of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the appellant-workmen and pay the same within a period of two months from the date of this order.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 14 - K Gambhir - Full Document

The Management Of vs A.M.Sekar on 6 June, 2011

58. Again, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the Management in O.P.Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Limited and others, [1986] 4 SCC 337 has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case for the simple reason that the employee therein was governed by the Indian Tourism Development Corporation (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1978, since the employer was a public sector undertaking covered by Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Madras High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 1 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

Gebr Pfeiffer (India) Pvt Ltd. vs Pradeep Sharma on 5 September, 2019

In the circumstances, the reliance that has been placed on behalf of the respondent on the verdict of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras is wholly misplaced and further more, it is essential to observe as has already been observed elsewhere herein above that the verdicts of the Supreme Court in O.P.Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development Corpn. Ltd. and Others; (1991 Supp (1) SCC 600) and 1991-I LLN 613 titled Delhi Transport Corporation v. Delhi Transport Corporation Mazdoor Congress; (1986) 4 SCC 337 relate specifically to the public sector undertakings which clearly fall within the ambit of the State in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - A Malhotra - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next