Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.04 seconds)
Documents citing Mani Ram vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court on 27 February, 1996

Between The vs The on 4 October, 2021

Neelam Kumari and Anr., 1993 (5) Services Law Reporter 134; Mani Ram V. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and Ors., (1996-2) 113 P.L.R. 39 and Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, 1993 (2) Service Cases Today 169. From these authorities, we find that not only that the moot point as raised in the authorities relied upon by the counsel for the respondent-
Delhi District Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Sh. Kali Dass And Anr. on 27 November, 1996

3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there is merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. No doubt there is no limitation provided under the Industrial Disputes Act to raise an industrial dispute but can it be said that it can be raised at any time and that too without any application. Is a workman at a better footing or at a higher pedestal than a civil servant or an employee of any other organisation? If the services of an employee of the latter category are dispensed with they are required to challenge the same in the Civil Court within a period of three years. Even for writ petition the Supreme court has observed that three years is a reasonable period within which the aggrieved party must approach to challenge termination as that is the period for filing a civil suit. According to us, the workman cannot be allowed to approach the Labour Court after more than three years of the termination of service. We find support from the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent workman also cited Prem Singh v. Labour Commissioner, Punjab, (1994-1)106 P.L.R. 354 ; Management of Haryana Development Authority v. Miss Neelam Kumari and Anr., 1993(5) Services Law Reporter 134; Mani Ram v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and Ors., (1996-2)113 P.L.R. 39 and Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, 1993(2) Service Cases Today 169. From these authorities, we find that not only that the moot point as raised in the authorities relied upon by the counsel for the respondent-workman was in issue but those were decided on the peculiar facts of those cases. There is a detailed discussion on the point in issue in all the authorities referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner with which we are in respectful agreement. The respondent-workman in the present case has chosen not to raise his little finger for a period of more than 7-1/2 years when he thought of just issue a demand notice. For such a long time, the petitioner-management is even not supposed to keep all the record concerning its workmen. It becomes really difficult to defend such a cases. The suit, if it had to be filed by the workman before a civil Court, would have been hopelessly time-barred. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the respondent-workman was not entitled to any relief from the Labour Court on the ground of delay. The management has been unnecessarily burdened with the re-instatement of the workman and also the back wages from the year 1991.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 65 - N C Khichi - Full Document

Ajaib Singh vs Sirhind Co-Operative ... on 10 February, 1998

13. Similarly, in Mani Ram's case (supra), a delay of four years was over-looked and it was said that the employee was not entitled to the back wages for that period. Since we have reservations about the view expressed by the Bench, it would have been appropriate to refer this matter to a larger Bench. However, it does not appear necessary to do so in view of the fact that there are other binding decisions which seem to answer the question involved in the present case.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 364 - N C Khichi - Full Document

Shri Nakli Ram And Others vs The Haryana State Electricity Board And ... on 3 July, 2014

2. The relief claimed in the present bunch of writ petitions is that the respondents should be directed to take the petitioners back in service in pursuance of the decisions rendered by this Court in CWP Nos. 12538 of Gupta Shivani 1994, 12718-721 of 1994, 14418 of 1994, 16919-921 of 1994, Mani Ram 2014.07.08 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 19409 of 1997 2 and others vs. Haryana State Electricity Board decided on 27.02.1996 (Annexure P-1/A), reported as Mani Ram and others vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, 1996 (2) RSJ 95, which was upheld in SLP (C) No. 12773-81 of 1996 on 17.02.1997.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Gurvinder Singh Rana vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 3 April, 1998

Neelam Kumari and Anr., (1993-2)104 Punjab Law Reporter 552; Prem Singh and Ors. v. Labour Commissioner, Punjab and Ors., (1994-1)106 Punjab Law Reporter 354; Mani Ram v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, (1996-2)113 Punjab Law Reporter 39. It was held that mere delay in raising an industrial] dispute will not disentitle a workman from raking up the controversy though the relief can be couched differently. Of course, in a case of inordinate delay, the relief could be refused but the facts of the present case are little different. The petitioner  had preferred the appeal. The Punjab School Education Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1978. Regulation 10 reads :-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - V S Aggarwal - Full Document
1