Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 664 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing Surendra Kumar Verma Etc vs The Central Government Industrial ... on 23 September, 1980

Vijay Pal vs Management Of M/S Panorma Export Pvt. ... on 16 May, 2012

In the case of Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court : (1981)ILLJ386SC , this Court has observed that the plain common sense dictates that the removal order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen. It is as if the order has never been, and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages too. But there may be exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or wholly inequitable vis-`-vis the employer and workmen to direct reinstatement with full back wages. For instance, the industry might have closed down or might be in severe financial doldrums; the workmen concerned might have secured better or other employment elsewhere and so on. In such situations, there is a vestige of W.P. (C) 14156/2006 Page 24 of 35 discretion left in the court to make appropriate consequential orders. The court may deny the relief of reinstatement where reinstatement is impossible because the industry has closed down. The court may deny the relief of award of full back wages where that would place an impossible burden on the employer. In such and other exceptional cases the court may mould the relief.
Delhi High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - P K Bhasin - Full Document

Suraj Pal Singh vs The Presiding Officer And Anr. on 9 September, 2005

In one of the cases cited before us, that is, Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court1, we had occasion to say, "Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of 'bread and butter' statutes. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions."
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 10 - S Khanna - Full Document

Hari Krishan & Anr. vs The Management Of M/S Northern Scales ... on 14 May, 2012

In the case of Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court : (1981)ILLJ386SC , this Court has W.P. (C) 18888-89/2006 Page 13 of 25 observed that the plain common sense dictates that the removal order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen. It is as if the order has never been, and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages too. But there may be exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or wholly inequitable vis-`-vis the employer and workmen to direct reinstatement with full back wages. For instance, the industry might have closed down or might be in severe financial doldrums; the workmen concerned might have secured better or other employment elsewhere and so on. In such situations, there is a vestige of discretion left in the court to make appropriate consequential orders. The court may deny the relief of reinstatement where reinstatement is impossible because the industry has closed down. The court may deny the relief of award of full back wages where that would place an impossible burden on the employer. In such and other exceptional cases the court may mould the relief.
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - P K Bhasin - Full Document

Ramabai Gulabrao Jamnik vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 20 June, 2017

In one of the cases cited before us, that is, Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, we had occasion to say, Semantic Luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of "bread and butter" Statutes. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions.
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 5 - R B Deo - Full Document

Devendra Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P Thru Prin Secy Consumer ... on 16 October, 2025

In one of the cases cited before us, that is, Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court [Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, (1980) 4 SCC 443 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 16] , we had occasion to say: (Surendra Kumar Verma case [Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, (1980) 4 SCC 443 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 16] , SCC p. 447, para 6) '6. ? Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of "bread and butter" statutes. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions.' "
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - M Mathur - Full Document

Anand Kumar vs Emkay Industries on 30 September, 2015

In the case of Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court : (1981)ILLJ386SC , this Court has observed W.P.(C) 5300/2012 Page 12 of 17 that the plain common sense dictates that the removal order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen. It is as if the order has never been, and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages too. But there may be exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or wholly inequitable vis-`-vis the employer and workmen to direct reinstatement with full back wages. For instance, the industry might have closed down or might be in severe financial doldrums; the workmen concerned might have secured better or other employment elsewhere and so on. In such situations, there is a vestige of discretion left in the court to make appropriate consequential orders. The court may deny the relief of reinstatement where reinstatement is impossible because the industry has closed down. The court may deny the relief of award of full back wages where that would place an impossible burden on the employer. In such and other exceptional cases the court may mould the relief.
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - S Gupta - Full Document

Ramesh Kumar Rawat vs The Management Of M/S Northern Scales ... on 14 May, 2012

In the case of Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court : (1981)ILLJ386SC , this Court has W.P. (C) 7385/2007 Page 13 of 25 observed that the plain common sense dictates that the removal order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen. It is as if the order has never been, and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages too. But there may be exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or wholly inequitable vis-`-vis the employer and workmen to direct reinstatement with full back wages. For instance, the industry might have closed down or might be in severe financial doldrums; the workmen concerned might have secured better or other employment elsewhere and so on. In such situations, there is a vestige of discretion left in the court to make appropriate consequential orders. The court may deny the relief of reinstatement where reinstatement is impossible because the industry has closed down. The court may deny the relief of award of full back wages where that would place an impossible burden on the employer. In such and other exceptional cases the court may mould the relief.
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 2 - P K Bhasin - Full Document

Smt. Poonam vs City Hospital on 8 January, 2025

69.That being so, in view of the legal proposition as laid in Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, (1980) 4 SCC 443 and referred in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324 as well as Tapash Kumar Paul v. BSNL, (2014) 15 SCC 313, considering that in its written statement, the management no.2 has admitted the claimant/workwoman to have been its employee only w.e.f. 01.09.2015 and the claimant/ workwoman has not led any evidence to prove that she was working with the management no.2 since prior to 01.09.2015; and further considering that the services of the claimant/workwoman were terminated on 30.07.2016 i.e. when she had been working with the management no.2 for less than a year prior to her illegal termination, and also considering that it cannot be presumed that the claimant/ workwoman would have remained idle since termination of her services, it would be inequitable to award reinstatement, and interests of justice shall be served if the claimant/ workwoman is awarded lump sum compensation of Rs 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only) payable by the management no.2.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next