Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing Namdeo Shrawan Lokhande vs Chocks Canning And Mining Ltd. And Ors. on 9 January, 1962

General Motor-Owners' Association (By ... vs Mahamoodkhan Vazirkhan on 3 November, 1966

34. So far as the jurisdiction of the Payment of Wages Authority is concerned, the mere declaration that the dismissal is wrongful cannot give it jurisdiction to decree a claim for wages for that period. There must be an order of reinstatement, and admittedly there was no order of reinstatement passed in the present case. To the extent, therefore, that the decision in Namdeo v. Chocks, etc., Ltd., [1962 - II L.L.J. 323] (vide supra) holds that an order passed under S. 41 simpliciter would give jurisdiction to the Payment of Wages Authority to decree a claim for wages of that employee, that decision must be held to be incorrect. Without an order of reinstatement, the Payment of Wages Authority would have no jurisdiction to order the payment of wages.
Bombay High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

Radhabai Sugriv Survase And Anothers vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 26 April, 2016

6] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners places reliance on unreported Judgment of the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, in the case of Vishnu s/o. Namdeo Lokhande Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.8463/2015, decided on 18.12.2015, the Judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sharad Vs. Vishnu Mali Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others [W.P. No.5501 of 2008 and connected Petitions, decided on 28.11.2008], Jalindar Rawan Awate Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others [W.P.No.5286 of 2011, decided on 17.10.2011], Sunita w/o. Navnath Lokhande Vs. The State of ::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:54:52 ::: 10862.2015 WP.odt 6 Maharashtra and others [W.P. No.2654 of 2013 and connected Petition decided on 05.09.2013], and Namdeo s/o. Tukaram Sasane Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others [W.P. No.106 of 2015, decided on 13.01.2015], and submits that in the said decided cases also the controversy whether appointment can be on compassionate ground given to the legal representatives of the deceased employee, who accepted MAARUF Agreement was involved. In all the afore-mentioned unreported Judgments, this Court has taken a view that rejection of the claim of appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that the deceased employee was working under MAARUF Agreement was erroneous, and accordingly Writ Petitions were allowed. Therefore, he submits that, the present Petition may be allowed.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S S Shinde - Full Document
1