Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (1.24 seconds)
Documents citing Competition Printing Press vs Jaiprakash Singh And Anr. on 19 March, 2001

The vs The on 11 January, 2007

30. The management has pleaded that the management had filed reply to the claim of the workman before the Conciliation Officer and the same is Ex. MW1/1 and by the said reply the Conciliation Officer was informed that the management has not terminated the services of workman and the Conciliation Officer was requested to direct the workman to join the duty. The workman has filed rejoinder which was filed by him to the reply of the management before the Conciliation Officer and the same is Ex. WW1/4. The workman has failed to rebut the claim of management that Ex. MW1/1 was filed by the management before the Conciliation Officer and on offer of reinstatement was made by the management before the Conciliation Officer. In the cross-examination of MW1 also workman has put a question to MW1 to the effect that the workman his willing to join the management if the management agrees to pay wages for the intervening period of his disengagement from the management. The workman did not offer himself for employment in pursuance of offer of management which was made to him by the management by way of reply filed to the claim of the workman before the Conciliation Officer. If the workman was aggrieved that he was entitled to back wages and he was really interested in the job of the management, then, he could have accepted the offer of the management made before the Conciliation Officer reserving his right of the back wages as held in Sonal Garments v. Trimbak Shankar Karve (Supra) and Competition Printing Press v. Jaiprakash Singh and Another (Supra). But the workman did not -21- adopt this course and rather proceeded to litigate. These circumstances and conduct of the workman lends support to the version of management that the workman had abandoned the employment of management and he never came back to report for duty even after offer of the management for duty made before the Conciliation Officer. This leads to the conclusion that the workman had abandoned the employment of management.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Object Of The Industrial Disputes ... vs Chandigarh Administration on 16 August, 2007

In Competition Printing Press vs. Shriut Jaiprakash Singh and another 2001 LLR 768 the worker alleged that employer had illegally terminated his services w.e.f. 10.11.1981 whereas employer pleaded that he was absent from duty unauthorisedly w.e.f. 10.11.1989. The labour Officer had called both the parties on 29.11.1989 to resolve their dispute. The employer submitted before him that he had never terminated the services of the workman and he could report for work. It was borne out from the record that the workman refused to get reinstated without back wages from 10.11.1989 to 29.11.1989. The employer was not willing to pay the amount of back wages. The workman persisted in his demand that reinstatement with back wages. It was observed that the workman by not 26 accepting the offer of the reinstatement had abandoned employment and as such was not entitled to reinstatement and back wages. Hon'ble Court held:
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Workman Filed Statement Of Claim U/S 10 ... vs Trimbak Shankar Karve 2003 Llr 5 on 17 August, 2007

In Competition Printing Press vs. Shriut Jaiprakash Singh and another 2001 LLR 768 the worker alleged that employer had illegally terminated his services w.e.f. 10.11.1981 whereas employer pleaded that he was absent from duty unauthorisedly w.e.f. 10.11.1989. The labour Officer had called both the parties on 29.11.1989 to resolve their dispute. The employer submitted before him that he had never terminated the services of the workman and he could report for work. It was borne out from the record that the workman refused to get reinstated without back wages from 10.11.1989 to 29.11.1989. The employer was not willing to pay the 24 amount of back wages. The workman persisted in his demand that reinstatement with back wages. It was observed that the workman by not accepting the offer of the reinstatement had abandoned employment and as such was not entitled to reinstatement and back wages. Hon'ble Court held:
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Ved Prakash vs M/S The Nacon Marketing Services Pvt. ... on 29 September, 2007

& Another 2004 LLR 865 Bom., Continental Construction Ltd. Vs Presiding Officer & Another 2004 (102) FLR 1190 H.P., Tej Pal Vs Gopal Narain & Sons & Another 2006 LLR 1142 Del., Competition Printing Press Vs Sariut Jaiprakash Singh & Another 2001 I CLR 948 Bom., Sonal Garments VS Trimbak I.D. No. 1367/2004 17 Shankar Karve 2003 LLR 5 Bom., Suja Agencies VS Uday Sing B. Rawat& Another 2004 LLR 2004 20 Bom., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. VS D. N. Vidhata and Another 2004 LLR 21 Bom., M/s Purafil Engineers, Pune VS Shaikh Anwar Abdul Rahman 2000 LLR 268 Bom., State of Punjab VS Jagir Singh, 2004 III CLR 969 SC. In these cases the workman was offered employment/ to join duty in the Conciliation Proceedings and/or in the written statement before the industrial adjudicator and he did not avail this opportunity so it was held that the workman was not entitled to reinstatement to the job and back wages.
Delhi District Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Between vs The on 17 May, 2007

21. The plea of the management is that the services of the workman have not been terminated by the management and the workman voluntarily absented from duty w.e.f. 08.04.2000 and the workman did not join the duty despite offer of the duty made before the Conciliation Officer and by way of letter dt. 18.04.2000 Ex. MW1/4. The workman/WW1 stated in the cross- examination tht on 08.04.2000 there was a date before Conciliation Officer, Nimri Colony and he did not go for work as the management refused to pay him money. If the grievance of the workman is that the management has not paid his dues and he was interested in the job of the management he could have accepted the offer of the management made before the Conciliation Officer and could have joined the duty reserving his right for his legal dues as held in Sonal Garmetns vs. Trimbak Shankar Karve (Supra) & Competition Printing Press vs. Jaiprakash Singh and Another (Supra). However, the workman did not adopt this course and rather proceeded to litigate and the conduct of the workman lends support to the version of management that the workman had abandoned the employment and he never came back to report for duty even after offering the duty by the management before the Conciliation Officer also. It leads to the conclusion that the workman had abandoned the employment of the management.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Premsons Trading Pvt Ltd vs Hiraprasad Bindeshwar Yadav on 17 March, 2026

In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance was placed on several decisions, namely, M/s. Purafil Engineer, Pune v. Shaikkh Anwar Abdul Rahman, 1999 SCC OnLine Bom 876; R.K. Kitchen Equipments, Mumbai v. Majid Yusuf Hurape & Ors. , 2003 SCC OnLine Bom 1245; Competition Printing Press, Mumbai v. Shri Jaiprakash Singh & Anr., 2002 (1) L.L.N. 727; Sonal Garments v. Trimbak Shankar Karve, 2003 (1) L.L.N. 91; Raju Shankar Poojary v. Chembur Warehouse Company & Anr., 2003 (4) L.L.N. 616; Suja Agencies v. Uday Singh B. Rawat & Anr. , 2003 (4) L.L.N. 1218; Milestone (Franki Stall), Mumbai v. Mathew D'souza & Anr. , 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 796; Vilas Ganpati Patil v. Suyog Backwell Vasantdada Audyogik Vasahat, Sangli & Anr., 2018 (6) Mh.L.J.; Extrusion Process Ltd. v. Rajendra A. Sav & Anr. , 2004 (3) L.L.N. 996; M/s. Zoom Communications Ltd. v. Sharad Dipchand Patil (Writ Petition No.15687 of 2022 decided on 09 February 2024); and Kanga & Co. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No.2451 of 2006 decided on 13 October 2006).
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A B Borkar - Full Document

Harish Chander vs M/S Jai Durga Industries & Anr on 6 April, 2026

In support of this proposition, he places reliance on the following judgments Sukhdev Singh v. Delhi Development Authority, 2011 Online Del 4680, Competition Printing Press v. Jaiprakash Singh, 2001 LLR 768, Laxmi Kant v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, P&H High Court (CWP No. 2895/1998), P. Krishnan v. Management, Jonas Woodhead & Sons (India) Ltd., 2003 LLR 852 contending that these judgments consistently hold that failure to resume duty despite opportunities disentitles the workman from claiming relief for alleged termination.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The vs The on 10 January, 2008

12. As per notice Ex. WW1/3 which has been filed by workman himself on record, the workman was offered duties by the management, but as per Ex. WW1/4 the workman did not accept the offer of reinstatement of management as made to him by notice Ex. WW1/4 on the pretext that the workman was ready to join the duty if and only if his dues and payments are made to him by the management. If the grievance of the workman is that the management has not paid his dues and he was interested in the job of the management then he could have accepted the offer of the management made for job by way of letter Ex. WW1/3 and could have joined the duty reserving his right for his legal dues as held in Sonal Garmetns vs. Trimbak Shankar Karve (Supra) & Competition Printing 6 Press vs. Jaiprakash Singh and Another (Supra). However, the workman did not adopt this course and rather proceeded to litigate and the conduct of the workman shows that he had abandoned the employment and he never went back to report for duty even after offer of duties made to him by the management. It leads to the conclusion that the workman had absented from duties of the management. As the workman himself had absented from the duties of the management, hence there is no question of termination of the services of the workman illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management. Consequently, the workman is not entitled to any relief. Reference stands answered accordingly. Copies of this award be sent to appropriate Govt. for publication as per law. File be consigned to record room. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY i.e. ON 10.01.2008.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next