Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing G. Venkataramanappa vs C. Kotappa on 23 June, 1988

H.P. State Electricity Board And Anr. vs Presiding Officer And Ors. on 30 December, 1998

In G. Venkataramanappa v. C. Kotappa 1988 LIC 958 a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court observed while dealing with the claim for minimum bonus in an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act that the claim for money that can be enforced under the Act need not necessarily arise out of the Industrial Disputes Act itself, and inasmuch as the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 is not a self contained code in respect of investigation and determination of disputes and so far as the rates and liability created under the said Act, the Labour Court can deal with the claim, if need be even going into the question of the existence of the rates disputed by an employer in a private sector as an incidental power available while exercising the main power.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Management Of Modern Mills Limited, ... vs K.P. Shenoy And Another on 31 July, 1997

9. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Venkataramanappa's case, referred to above, which otherwise would have been binding on me, is to be distinguished for the reason that the observations of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Central Bank's case, on which the Division Bench based its decision, have since been referred to in the latter decision of the Supreme Court in the Delhi Municipal Corporation's case, as already referred to and even in the light of the said observations of the Supreme Court in the Central Bank's case, the Supreme Court held that the adjudication of a dispute like the present one, cannot be called incidental to the decision of the question under Section 33-C(2) of the Act.
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1