Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 328 (1.46 seconds)
Documents citing A.K. Bindal & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 April, 2003

Chemplast Sanmar Limited vs The Presiding Officer on 28 February, 2020

55. The argument of Mr.Prasad that if the judgment of the labour Court is not perverse then writ Courts must be slow to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that this Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction ought not to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge which is a plausible view also cannot be accepted. Page 51 of 55 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.61 and 62 of 2006 He would state that this Court ought not to substitute its conclusion to the one arrived at by the learned Single Judge affirming the order of the labour Court. We are afraid that we cannot accept the submission. The order of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in HEC VOLUNTARY RETD EMPLOYEES WELFARE SOCIETY AND ANOTHER Vs HEAVY ENGINEERING CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS (2006) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 708; A.K.BINDAL AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2003) 5 SUPREME COURT CASES 163 and IFCI LTD Vs. SANJAY BEHARI AND ORS {2019 (12) Scale 522}. This Court has no other option except but to set it aside and this Court is of the view that jural relationship of employer and employee snapped on the date when the employee submitted their letters of resignation and therefore, dis entitling them to the benefits of the increase in wages. The wages were increased only from the date of settlement. But since the earlier wage revision ended on 31/3/1994, the employees were given arrears of wages from 31/3/1994. The employees on roll will be given arrears from 1/4/1994 and this benefit was extended only to two classes of workers who were not on roll on the date when the settlement was entered into and to such of those persons who had attained the age of superannuation between the date on which the wage Page 52 of 55 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.Nos.61 and 62 of 2006 revision was come into force till the time the settlement was actually entered into and workmen who had passed away in the interrugnum. We reiterate that it cannot be said that intention of the employees Union had entered into a settlement was to include persons who had taken voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme also. Had it been so, it would have been specifically stated in the terms of settlement.
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document

Sanjay Behari & Ors vs Ifci on 17 January, 2019

11. On 19th September 2018, during the course of hearing, the Appellants referred to the office order dated 4th January, 2001 wherein certain clarifications were issued by IFCI relating to an earlier voluntary retirement scheme- VRS 2000-2001. It was submitted that this clarification was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge and this notification was not considered by the Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Bindal (supra). It was further submitted that the IFCI had revised pay scale with retrospective effect from 1st November, 2007, when the Appellants were in employment. On the other hand, IFCI submitted that no benefit had accrued to any of its employee w.e.f. 1st November, 2007 and the revision in pay scale was given to its existing employees in the year 2013, except for one employee who had opted to remain on RBI pay scales instead of CTC structure.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S Narula - Full Document

C.S. Gera vs B.S.E.S Rajdhani Powr Limited on 9 December, 2013

4. The aforesaid order was passed because similar writ petitions were dismissed by me as per the judgments passed in the cases of Sh. Ram Dass (supra) and Sandesh Verma (supra) on the principle that those employees who have taken VRS benefits cannot after voluntarily taking VRS benefits seek monetary benefits on account of earlier services rendered in view of direct ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Bindal and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2003) 5 SCC 163 which holds that on the SVRS being accepted by an employee there is a golden handshake and after taking VRS benefits there does not remain relationship of employer and employee for the employee to contend after many years that he ought to have been granted certain monetary emoluments/benefits which were to be granted during the period of services but which were denied to him.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Maharashtra State Financial ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 February, 2023

38. However, in the opinion of this court, employees who secured VRS benefits and left the service of MSFC voluntarily during this period, stand on a different footing. They cannot claim parity with those who worked continuously, discharged their functions, and thereafter superannuated. VRS employees chose to opt and leave the service of the corporation; they found the VRS offer beneficial to them. Apart from the normal terminal benefits they were entitled to, the additional amount each of them was given - was an ex- gratia amount, equal to a month’s salary for each completed year of service. Other retired employees were never given such amounts. This has been emphasized in A.K. Bindal v. Union of India (supra):
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Ram Sagar Rajak vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 2 August, 2016

8. We have carefully gone through the pleadings, the Annexures filed by both sides and the orders passed by the BIFR and the judgments cited by the counsel appearing on either side. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent drew our attention to a recent judgment of this Court in A.K. Bindal and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., [2003] 5 SCC 163 in support of her contention. We have perused the said judgment. In our Patna High Court CWJC No.4821 of 2013 dt.02-08-2016 35/37 opinion, since the employees of government companies are not government servants, they have absolutely no legal right to claim that the Government should pay their salary or that the additional expenditure incurred on account of revision of their pay-scales should be met by the Government, Being employees of the companies, it is the responsibility of the companies to pay them salary and if the company is sustaining losses continuously over a period and does not have the financial capacity to revise or enhance the pay-scale, the petitioners, in our view, cannot claim any legal right to ask for a direction to the Central Government to meet the additional expenditure which may be incurred on account of revision of pay-scales. We are unable to countenance the submission made by Mr. Sanghi that economic viability of the industrial unit or the financial capacity of the employer cannot be taken into consideration in the matter of revision of pay-scales of the employees.(emphasis supplied)"
Patna High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - S Pandey - Full Document

State Of H.P vs Rajesh Chander Sood Etc Etc on 28 September, 2016

8. We have carefully gone through the pleadings, the Annexures filed by both sides and the orders passed by the BIFR and the judgments cited by the counsel appearing on either side. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent drew our attention to a recent judgment of this Court in A.K. Bindal and Anr. v. Union of India, (2003) 5 SCC 163, in support of her contention. We have perused the said judgment. In our opinion, since the employees of Government companies are not Government servants, they have absolutely no legal right to claim that the Government should pay their salary or that the additional expenditure incurred on account of revision of their pay-scales should be met by the Government. Being employees of the companies, it is the responsibility of the companies to pay them salary and if the company is sustaining losses continuously over a period and does not have the financial capacity to revise or enhance the pay-scale, the petitioners, in our view, cannot claim any legal right to ask for a direction to the Central Government to meet the additional expenditure which may be incurred on account of revision of pay-scales. We are unable to countenance the submission made by Mr. Sanghi that economic viability of the industrial unit or the financial capacity of the employer cannot be taken into consideration in the matter of revision of pay-scales of the employees.”
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 73 - Cited by 0 - J S Khehar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next